HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/24/199085
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING April 24, 1990
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA
( The Planning Commission encourages applicants or their representatives to be available at
M the meeting to answer questions so that no agenda item need be deferred to a later date
O due to a lack of pertinent information.
Q
() COMMISSIONERS: Balshaw, Bennett* (arrived at 7:25 PM), Libarle Parkerson, Read,
Tarr
ABSENT: Doyle
STAFF: Warren Salmons, Planning Director
Gary Broad, Associate Planner
Jenny Cavanagh, Assistant Planner
* Chairman
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 10, 1990 were approved with corrections to page 4.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
The Commission will hear public comments only on matters over which they have
jurisdiction. There will be no Commission discussion or action. The chairman will allot no
more than five minutes to any individual. If more than three persons wish to speak their
time will be allotted so that the total amount of time allocated to this agenda item will be
15 minutes.
DIRECTOR'S .REPORT: Base economic analysis; Nizibian Subdivision appeal May 21st;
Housing Element Update required.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Parkerson thanked organizers of
Earthday - especially Petaluma River Cruise Organizer.
CORRESPONDENCE: Twin Creeks EIR; Letter from Supervisor Harberson; Letter from
TV 50; note regarding Quarry Gardens project withdrawal; Quaker Hill requested
continuance to May 8th.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LO WE
OLD BUSINESS:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(Commissioner Bennett arrived at 7:25, prior to this item.)
I. FORMAN /PETRO, 1004 LAKEVILLE STREET, AP NO. 005- 060 -21 FILE NO.
1.664Uc).
1. Continued consideration of EIQ.
2. Continued consideration of three conditional use permits to legalize three
pre - existing uses (wholesale plumbing, wholesale candy, minor auto repair).
The public hearing was opened:
SPEAKERS:
Don Petro - Applicant - 1300 Glenwood Drive - No problems with conditions; question
regarding Condition 1d - any ideas what SPARC will be looking for?
Commissioner Parkerson - ( SPARC Representative) - (answer to above question) just
some minor visual relief.
Commissioner Read - Use permit for wholesale only (candy).
Don Petro - Frazer's Candy sells retail on a very small scale.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to
direct staff to issue a mitigated negative declaration for the three conditional use permits to
allow wholesale candy, wholesale plumbing and minor auto repair (limited to glass repair)
based on the following findings:
COMMISSIONER BALSHAW:Yes
COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Absent
CHAIRMAN BENNETT:Yes
COMMISSIONER LIBARLE:Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR:Yes
Findings
1. The 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. The uses, as conditionally approved, do not have the potential to achieve short -term
to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals.
PJ,
87
3. The uses, as conditionally approved, do not have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable.
4. The uses, as conditionally approved, do not have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
5. The uses are consistent with and further promote the objectives, goals, and policies
of the General Plan.
A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Libarle to
grant three conditional use permits to legalize three pre - existing uses based on the
following findings and subject to the following amended conditions:
0
Q COMMISSIONER BALSHAW:Yes
U COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
Q COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Absent
CHAIRMAN BENNETT:Yes
COMMISSIONER LIBARLE:Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR:Yes
Findings
1. The uses, subject to the conditions of approval, conform to the intent and
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan.
2. The 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. This project shall be subject to SPARC review with emphasis on the following:
a. Existing planters shall be repaired where needed.
b. Provision of a handicap space (designed to accommodate side - loading
vehicles).
C. A trash enclosure conforming to all City Standards shall be provided or trash
shall be stored indoors.
d. Proposed architecture shall be substantially upgraded to provide adequate
visual relief.
e. Plans submitted for SPARC review shall be prepared by a licensed architect,
licensed civil engineer, or licensed land surveyor.
f. Plans submitted for SPARC review shall show final street layout (in
conformance with Lakeville Plan Line) and any easements.
g. A minimum of 34 parking spaces shall be provided.
3
RN
•
h. Landscaping, to include trellis and climbing vines, shall be provided against
the east building elevation (existing building).
i. The areas shown cross - hatched (on plans submitted for use permit review) in
front of the existing building shall be landscaped.
2. On -site repair of vehicles shall be limited to replacement of glass windshields and
windows and shall be conducted within the building.
3. Existing paving shall be repaired /replaced as deemed necessary by staff prior to
Certificate of Occupancy.
4. Pallets and other existing outdoor storage shall be removed, relocated indoors, or
provided with an enclosure prior to issuance of a building permit, subject to staff
review and approval.
5. Existing spaces along the dock area shall be rendered useable through removal of
"no parking" signs.
6. At no time shall future business activities exceed Performance Standards specified
in the Uniform Building Code, Section 22 -301 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance,
and the 1987 General Plan.
7. Any of the three use permits may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review
at any time due to complaints regarding operating characteristics. At such time the
Commission may repeal the use permit or add modified conditions of approval.
8. No signs may be erected on the site without issuance of a sign permit. All existing
signs shall be brought into conformance with the City Sign Ordinance prior to
issuance of a building permit.
9. There shall be no open storage of equipment, materials, trash, litter, pallets,
packaging or containers.
10. All work within a public right -of -way requires an excavation permit from the
Department of Public Works.
11. Major Traffic Facilities Improvement Fees: The project sponsor shall, prior to
issuance of a building permit, pay a fee of $50.00 per daily trip end estimated to be
generated by said project (new building only). Trip generation figures shall be as
determined by the City Engineer. If the City establishes a Major Facilities Traffic
Mitigation fee prior to issuance of a building permit, the fee for said project shall
thereinafter be either $50.00 per trip end of the major facilities traffic mitigation
fee, whichever is more.
12. Community Facilities fees shall be applicable to this project (new building).
13. Validity of the two use permits for wholesale and wholesale /warehouse is effective
upon approval of associated rezoning to Highway Commercial.
14. All requirements of the Engineering Department must be complied with, including:
El
AM
II. TWIN CREEKS, OFF HOLLY LANE - NORTHWEST OF MADISON STREET, AP
NO.'S 007 - 221 -91, 136- 100 -26 AND 33; FILE NO.'S 11.871, 3.381, 6.917(gb).
1. Continued review and consideration of recommendation for certification of
Draft Environmental Impact Report.
2. Consideration of PUD Rezoning, PUD Unit Development Plan and
Tentative Map to create 48 single - family dwelling lots.
The public hearing was continued.
SPEAKERS:
Carolyn Mills - EIR consultant - described responses from Department of Fish and Game
and Corps of Engineers; City Traffic Engineer; impact on existing residents of Ellis Street.
Commissioner Balshaw - Concerns regarding architectural inadequacy.
Commissioner Tarr - Lots very narrow.
Tom Sherwood - Attorney for applicant - Would like to continue this item to further
discuss problems brought out in staff report; project has merits; would like to have the
chance to work on redesign.
Israel Polonskv - HYH Corporation - Project proponent - Discussed 100 -year flood area;
secondary access may not be required by Fire Marshal; high density may result in lower -
cost units to be built; Washington Creek not very attractive, that is why housing backs onto
it; answered questions.
5
a. Street section, improvements and striping must conform to Lakeville Plan
line.
15.
All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be complied with, including:
a. Fire hydrant shall be installed near driveway at Lakeville Street. One
hydrant required with double 2 -1/2 and single 4 -1/2 outlets.
b. Twenty foot access shall be maintained to new building.
16.
All requirements of the Building Division shall be complied with, including:
Co
a. Show site drainage and grading topography.
O
b. Indicate all utilities on site plan.
C)
C. Verify utilities are adequate for building (i.e., size of water, electrical and gas
service and size of sewer).
d. Responsible party to sign plans.
e. Submit soils report to verify foundation design.
17.
Use of the public right -of -way for loading /unloading shall be prohibited.
78.
Future uses of the site, including retail, shall be limited to those which, in the opinion of
the Community Director, create an equal or lesser parking demand than
those for which tf �re use permits are issued.
II. TWIN CREEKS, OFF HOLLY LANE - NORTHWEST OF MADISON STREET, AP
NO.'S 007 - 221 -91, 136- 100 -26 AND 33; FILE NO.'S 11.871, 3.381, 6.917(gb).
1. Continued review and consideration of recommendation for certification of
Draft Environmental Impact Report.
2. Consideration of PUD Rezoning, PUD Unit Development Plan and
Tentative Map to create 48 single - family dwelling lots.
The public hearing was continued.
SPEAKERS:
Carolyn Mills - EIR consultant - described responses from Department of Fish and Game
and Corps of Engineers; City Traffic Engineer; impact on existing residents of Ellis Street.
Commissioner Balshaw - Concerns regarding architectural inadequacy.
Commissioner Tarr - Lots very narrow.
Tom Sherwood - Attorney for applicant - Would like to continue this item to further
discuss problems brought out in staff report; project has merits; would like to have the
chance to work on redesign.
Israel Polonskv - HYH Corporation - Project proponent - Discussed 100 -year flood area;
secondary access may not be required by Fire Marshal; high density may result in lower -
cost units to be built; Washington Creek not very attractive, that is why housing backs onto
it; answered questions.
5
90
Commissioner Tarr - Were condominiums considered for this project?
Israel Polonsky - Yes, condominiums were considered, but felt existing neighborhood
would object.
Bonnie Mosel - Project applicant - described project in regard to proposed channel project.
Dave Vieram - 26 Payran - Payran very narrow - has had 3 vehicles wrecked on narrow
streets; concerns regarding traffic increase on Payran.
Bob Martin - 171 Pa - concerns regarding flooding; has this section of river been
considered for Riverwalk? Why aren't "pole structures" being considered for flood areas?
Should wait until Corps determines width of channel.
Supervisor Jim Harberson - 505 Yellowstone Court - Flood problems in this area already
exist; this development may cause additional flooding; EIR should more fully address
flooding issues.
Cindy �— llndg_e - 91 Wilmington - Only one access now - Leisure Lake only had one access
during flood and there were many problems.
Warren Salmons - Preliminary review was done in 1988 with essentially the same
recommendations and observations with no changes to the project.
Commissioner Parkerson - EIR needs further information regarding flooding, additional
access, provision of low /moderate income units; more interesting project could be
presented here.
Tom Sherwood - asked again for continuance to work with staff further; thinks project can
be redone to meet EIR recommendations.
Commissioner Libarle - Concerns regarding flooding with cumulative projects; will vote no.
Commissioner Balshaw - Needs second access; flooding concerns.
Commissioner Bennett - Flooding not adequately covered in EIR.
Commissioner Balshaw - this project should not be held up because of Corps of Engineers
study.
Commissioner Tarr - Total acreage 7 acres (not in Floodway); how much is floodway?
Project should be developed as condominium or centrally - oriented.
Commissioner Parkerson - More review regarding second access and flooding; central -core
project would be good.
Commissioner Parkerson Safety, design diversity should be aspects of EIR adequacy.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Read to
recommend certification of the Final EIR to the City Council subject to revisions regarding
flooding - both of the site and the contribution of the site to flooding of adjacent areas,
secondary access, evaluation of an alternative project utilizing a more centralized and an
open space buffer concept, a change in the trip ends to 10 per unit, and added mitigation
that there will be no project at this site until the Army Corps of Engineers project is fully
defined and all General Plan policies are met by a substantially revised development
proposal.
COMMISSIONER BALSHAW:Yes
COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Absent
CHAIRMAN BENNETT:Yes
COMMISSIONER LIBARLE:Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR:Yes
A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Read to
deny the rezoning to Planned Unit District based on the following findings:
0
91
COMMISSIONER BALSHAW:No
COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Absent
CHAIRMAN BENNETT:Yes
COMMISSIONER LIBARLE:Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR:Yes
1. The Army Corps of Engineers has indicated that an additional twenty feet of
CD excavation from the banks of the Petaluma River over the plans considered as part
of the Draft EIR preparation is required. The increased width could require
(J) redesign of the proposed lots along the Petaluma River, impact the proposed open
Q space area along the Petaluma River by reducing land available for open space, and
require substantial. project redesign.
U 2. The proximity of this site to the Petaluma River and its potential impact on the
ability to widen the river for flood control improvements require that the feasibility
phase of the Corps project be completed to ensure that development of the site will
not constrain the Petaluma River flood control project.. It is premature to approve
this project prior to a final determination of the precise Corps design for widening
the river.
4. The Department of Fish and Game has indicated that "approval of this project as
proposed may eliminate the opportunity to provide adequate mitigation for the
Corps of Engineers project."
5. Until the Corps project has been finalized, a determination cannot be made as to
the required location or design for the planting of riparian vegetation on the project
site. .It is premature to approve this project until the location and type of riparian
vegetation program for this subdivision and the Corps project can be determined.
The ability to re- establish riparian vegetation is necessary for consistency with the
general plan.
6. The police and fire departments have indicated that a secondary access is necessary
in order to serve the subdivision during emergency situations. Failure to provide
secondary access could impact the health and safety of residents of the area and the
project site.
7. The City Traffic Engineer has indicated that secondary access should be provided
not merely for emergency purposes, but for vehicular access as well. Internal
roadways as proposed are inadequate to permit adequate parking on both sides of
the street as required by the City Traffic Engineer.
8. The existence of a public right of way between the project site and Madison Street
provides an opportunity to develop secondary access to the site. The applicant was
unable to acquire property along the existing right of way to allow for either an
emergency or a vehicular secondary access to the site. Secondary access is required
for consistency with the City of Petaluma General Plan and to meet identified
emergency service and traffic concerns related to health and safety issues.
9. The proposed "back -on" treatment to Washington Creek, in which rear lot lines will
be provided abutting the creek, is inconsistent with the City of Petaluma General
7
92
Plan policies for providing setbacks from waterways to. provide open space,
recreation area, and wildlife habitat. A single loaded street along the creek or other
project redesign is required to retain the creek as a visual amenity and allow
revegetation of the creek.
10. A substantial project redesign is necessary to open up Washington Creek by
providing a single loaded street along the creek. Redesign of both the internal
roadway pattern and the lotting pattern for this development will be necessary.
11. The proposed development is inconsistent with general plan policies for protecting
the Petaluma River as a natural resource and habitat, for insuring access along the
full length of the river, and for retaining the river as open space.
12. Narrow lots and selected unit design will result. in "garage door architecture visible
to pedestrian /motorists, inconsistent with general plan objectives for , creating well -
designed developments and distinct neighborhoods.
13. Proposed unit architecture fails to. provide a diverse mix of housing styles as
required by general plan policies for promoting, architectural diversity.
14. This development fails to respect existing development along Wilmington Drive.
Redesign is necessary to increase rear yard setbacks or to allow for the provision of
single story units to reduce the loss of privacy to Wilmington residents and provide
greater compatibility with the existing predominantly single story residences on
Wilmington.
15. This project does not have a suitable relationship to thoroughfares with adequate
carrying capacity. A single access to serve the site from Wilmington and Holly
Street is inadequate for the provision of emergency services. A secondary'vehicular
access and increased internal roadway widths is necessary.
16. The addition of peak hour trips with a single access to the site will result in a further
noticeable loss of residential character to residents of Wilmington. Drive and
Madison Street and result in proportional increases in pedestrian /vehicle safety
conflicts.
17. This development plan fails to. present, a unified and organized arrangement of
buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in - relation to adjacent
properties and that adequate landscaping and /or screening is included to insure
compatibility. The project failures include inadequate design. adjacent to existing
houses on Wilmington to the north, providing a back -on treatment to the adjacent
Washington Creek, proposing to back five lots toward the Petaluma River, and
failure to propose habitat enhancement along the, river.
18. This development does not protect the natural and scenic qualities of the site. The
site design proposes a back -on treatment to Washington Creek which will reduce
the creek's value as both a natural and scenic resource. Five lots are proposed to
back toward the Petaluma River. No habitat enhancement is proposed along the
Petaluma River.
19. This project will be detrimental to the public welfare, will not be in the best interests
of the City and will not be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Petaluma and with the Petaluma General Plan.
3
93
This project fails from both a design perspective and from an inconsistency with the
goals, policies and objectives of the City of Petaluma General Plan.
20. This project does not clearly result in a more desirable use of .land and a better
physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning district or
combination of zoning districts. The project design failures include lack of
architectural diversity, back -on treatment to Washington Creek, no provision of
secondary access, and failure to respect existing development along Wilmington
Drive.
21. This rezoning is inconsistent with the City of Petaluma General Plan and its goals,
(D policies, objectives and programs as identified in the Planning Staff Analysis and
M Zoning Ordinance /General Plan Consistency sections of the staff report dated April
O 24, 1990 and hereby incorporated by reference.
A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Libarle to deny
U the PUD unit development plan to allow a 48 -unit subdivision based on the following
findings:
COMMISSIONER BALSHAW:No
COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Absent
CHAIRMAN BENNETT:Yes
® COMMISSIONER LIBARLE:Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR:Yes
Findings
1. This PUD unit development plan must be denied because the rezoning of this site to
PUD has been denied by the Planning Commission.
2. This project does not have a suitable relationship to thoroughfares with adequate
carrying capacity. A single access to serve the site from Wilmington and Holly
Street is inadequate for the provision of emergency services. A secondary vehicular
access and increased internal roadway widths is necessary.
3. The addition of peak hour trips with a single access to the site could create a
noticeable loss of residential character to residents of Wilmington Drive and
Madison Street and result in proportional increases in pedestrian /vehicle safety
conflicts.
4. This development plan fails to present a unified and organized arrangement of
buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to adjacent
properties and that adequate landscaping/ screening in included to insure
compatibility. The project failures include inadequate design adjacent to existing
houses on Wilmington to the north, providing a back -on treatment to the adjacent
Washington Creek, proposing to back five lots toward the Petaluma River, and
failure to propose habitat enhancement along the river.
5. This development does not protect the natural and scenic qualities of the site. The
site design proposes a back -on treatment to Washington Creek which will reduce
the creek's value as both a natural and scenic resource. Five lots are proposed to
E
94
back to the Petaluma River. No habitat enhancement is proposed along the
Petaluma River.
6. This project will be detrimental to the public welfare, will not be in the best interests
of the City and will not be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Petaluma and with the Petaluma General Plan.
This project fails from both a design perspective and from an inconsistency with the
goals, policies and objectives of the City of Petaluma General Plan.
7. This plan does not clearly result in a more desirable use of land and a better
physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning district or
combination of zoning districts. The project design failures include lack of
architectural diversity, back -on treatment to Washington Creek, no provision of
secondary access, and failure to respect existing development along Wilmington
Drive.
8. The Planning Commission must deny both the rezoning to PUD and the Unit
Development Plan because they cannot make the findings required by Zoning
Ordinance Section 19A -300.
9. This PUD Unit Development Plan is inconsistent with the City of Petaluma General
Plan and its goals, policies, objectives and programs as identified in the. Planning
Staff Analysis and Zoning Ordinance /General Plan Consistency sections of the staff
report dated April 24, 1990 and hereby incorporated by reference.
10. This PUD Unit Development Plan must be denied based on the finding as listed
above relative to the rezoning of this site to PUD. Said findings are hereby
incorporated by reference.
A motion was made by Commissioner Read and seconded by Commissioner - Parkerson to
recommend denial of the Tentative Map for a 48 -unit subdivision based on the following
findings:
COMMISSIONER BALSHAW: No
COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Absent
CHAIRMAN BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER LIBARLE: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
Tentative Map
Findings
1. This tentative map cannot be approved because the PUD rezoning and PUD unit
development plan have been denied. .
2. This tentative map must be denied based on the finding listed as listed above
relative to the rezoning of this site to PUD and consideration of the PUD Unit
Development Plan. Said findings are hereby incorporated by reference.
10
M
3. This tentative map does not provide adequate access to the proposed lots as no
secondary access is provided.
4. This tentative map is inconsistent with the existing single family residential zoning of
this site and with the City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. Denial of the PUD
rezoning and Unit Development Plan thereby precludes approval of this map within
.... the. present zoning district..
5. This tentative map is inconsistent with the City of Petaluma General Plan and its
goals, policies, objectives and programs as identified in the Planning Staff Analysis
and Zoning Ordinance /General Plan Consistency sections of the staff report dated
CD April 24, 1990 and hereby incorporated by reference.
M
Q III. QUAKER HILL DEVELOPMENT, CADER FARMS, ELY BOULEVARD NORTH
(SONOMA MOUNTAIN PARKWAY) AND RAINIER AVENUE, AP NO.'S 136-120 -
U 05, 18, 21 -23, FILE NO. 3.409, 6.980(pt).
Q 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 continued to May 8, 1990)
NEW BUSINESS:
PUBLIC HEARING:
IV. FORMAN /PETRO et. al., VICINITY OF LAKEVILLE STREET AND EAST
COURT, FILE NO.3.407(jc).
Consideration of rezoning of 16 parcels from M -L (Light Industrial) to C -H
(Highway Commercial); of 23 parcels from M -L to R -C (Compact
Residential) (no EIQ required).
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Claude Grey - 108 East Court - requested clarification on rezone; would rezone affect
residential property on East Court?
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Read and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to
recommend to the City Council approval of rezoning of several parcels to Highway
Commercial and Compact Residential based on the following findings:
COMMISSIONER BALSHAW:Yes
11
LOT.
COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Absent
CHAIRMAN BENNETT:Yes
COMMISSIONER LIBARLE:Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR:Yes
Findings
1. That the proposed rezoning will make the zoning consistent with the General Plan.
2. That state law and local policy call for consistency between zoning and General Plan
land use designations.
3. That public necessity, convenience, and general welfare permit the adoption of the
proposed amendment.
4. That no further environmental review is necessary for this amendment.
V. METCALF, 731 PAULA LANE, AP NO. 048-134-16, FILE NO. 3.4010c).
1. Consideration of rezoning on a one -acre parcel from R -1, 10,000 and
R -1, 20,000 to R -1, 10,000 (no EIQ required).
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Bonnie Mogel - Mogel Engineering - project applicant - no problems with conditions.
Harry Schloetter - 736 Paula - opposed to rezoning to R1 6,500.
Commissioner Parkerson - Should be limited to 2 lots.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Libarle to
recommend to the City Council approval of rezoning to R -1 10,000 based on the following
findings:
COMMISSIONER BALSHAW:Yes
COMMISSIONER READ: No - no chance to connect Paula Lane
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: No - should be limited to 2 lots
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Absent
CHAIRMAN BENNETT:Yes
COMMISSIONER LIBARLE:Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR:Yes
Findings:
1. That the proposed rezoning will make the zoning consistent with the General Plan.
12
.97
2. That state law and local policy call for consistency between zoning and General Plan
land use. designations.
3. That public necessity, convenience, and general welfare permit the adoption of the
proposed amendment.
4. No additional environmental review is necessary for this project.
VI. QUARRY GARDENS, MCNEAR AVENUE, SOUTH OF MISSION DRIVE, AP
(.0 NO.'s 008-471-30,31; FILE NO.6.644Uc).
M 1. Consideration of EIQ.
0 2. Consideration of Tentative Subdivision Map to create six single - family
residential lots on 2.75 acres.
U
Q
This project was withdrawn by the applicant.
PLANNING MATTERS
VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS.
1. Budget 1990 -91.
Discussion: Commissioner Read -
- Consultant funds should be spent on Tree Preservation
Ordinance
- Keep funds available for Commission education
- Consultant budget to be raised
- Enforcement staff member should be added
2. Tree Preservation Programs.
Discussion:
Recommendations - Inventory trees
Draft language for new /amended Ordinances
Bring budget recommendations back as an
agenda item soon.
3. Full -sized plans vs. reduced plans for Commission packets.
Discussion:
Staff will require reduced plans on a trial basis beginning now.
4. Referred from City Council:
a. Institute an annual General Plan implementation progress report.
b. Improve back -on development treatment on arterials.
IN
I'M
SM
C. Strengthen ordinances to preserve ridgelines.
d. Establish zoning for manufactured housing /mobile home
development.
ADJOURNMENT: 10:50 PM.
min0424 / pcom5
14