Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/23/19914 51 LO 0� O U Q REGULAR MEETING JULY 23, 1991 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA COMMISSIONERS: Bennett, Libarle *, Nelson, Parkerson, Rahman, Tarr, Thompson, STAFF: Warren Salmons, Director Pamela Tuft, Principal Planner Jane Thomson, Senior Planning Technician * Chairman MINUTES OF MEETING OF JULY 9,1991 were approved as written. PUBLIC COMMENT: None DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: ' Commissioner Parkerson asked what impacts could be expected to D Street Bridge during East D Street repaving. CORRESPONDENCE: One letter regarding Sutton Appeal; 4. letters (1 in support, 3 in oppositiori) to Boys and Girls Club project. APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read. 1 NEW BUSINESS: PLANNING MATTERS I. ELECTION OF OFFICERS. 1. Chairman - Commis_ sioner Libarle (nominated by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Thompson). 2. Vice - Chairman - Commissioner Parkerson (nominated by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Rahman). 3. S'PARC Representative - Commissioner Parkerson for the balance of 1991 /Commissioner Thompson beginning in 1992 (nominated by Commissioner Tan and seconded by Commissioner Bennett). PUBLIC HEARINGS: II. SUTTON, 205 TAHOLA, AP NO. 005-201-28 akt). 1. Consideration of appeal of revocation of home occupation permit for a mobile auto /marine consultation and repair business. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Roger and Lynn Burkhardt - 209 Tahola - nei hbors of appellant = no noise; Suttons are wonderful neighbors; work from mobile unit brown pick -up); honest neighbors; cannot confirm that any work has been performed at 205 Tahola. Debra Colemeyer - 201 Tahola 201 Tahola - neighbor; fixes cars in customer driveways, not in Mr. §u utton driveway; no problems, good neighbors. Jason Hill 1653 Wyonoochee - Mr. Sutton worked on car at 205 Tahola. - unhappy with work. Jeff Sutton - Appellant - answered ,questions regarding any work performed at his home; does business with many Petaluma businesses; some people did not pay their bills and are now complaining about his business; does not do work at his address. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and ;seconded by Commissioner Nelson to uphold the appeal due to a lack of evidence that work has been performed at 205 Tahola. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER KENNET 7: No COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes C0MMISSIONER `TARR: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes 7 453 III. BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB, 426 8TH STREET, FILE NO.'s GPA91001, REZ91008 (M). 1. Consideration of a Negative Declaration of environmental impact related to the following actions: 2. Consideration of a General Plan Amendment from Public Institutional to Urban Diversified. (5.1 to 10 du /ac), a portion of 426 8th Street (AP No. 008 - 294 -14), and from Urban Standard (2.1 to 5.0, du /ac) to Urban Diversified, properties located at 410, 414, 416 and 418 8th Street and 801 and 803 "F" Street (AP No. 008- 294 -5, 7, 13, 15, 16). co 3 Consideration of a Rezoning from R -1 6500 (One Family Residential) to RC M (Compact Single Family Residential) properties located at 414, 416, 418 and 0 426 8th Street (AP No. 008- 294 -05, 7, 8, 13, 14 (portion)). 0 U The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Debbie ',Sturgis - 1100 G Street supports Boys and Girls Club but urged denial of this rezone /GP Amendment because use of area is already heavy; vacant property should be developed for park /play area; submitted a letter urging denial. Mike De'Sanctis - 823 G Street - Traffic is already too heavy; driveway next to pool as proposed, is unsafe due to lack of sight distance. Marge IIodaVv - 1100 F Street - has been a 25-year resident of neighborhood; there is already too much traffic; safety of the many children walking to and from Boys and Girls Club should be considered. Dave Groves - 809 F Street - neighbor of Boys and Girls Club backing onto property line; does not seem like a logical place to build residences (especially rentals); would not like to see anything built on this property. Mike Maddin ' 810 F Street - Against rezoning, especially multiple - family residences; property 'should become part of McNear Park; should be used to further develop Boys and Girls facility. Alan Anspach - Executive Director of Boys and ,Girls Club (for last 8 years); 2 immediate neighbors are in ' support of project; traffic problems already exist - when new Boys and Girls Club site opens, traffic will be reduced; many options were discussed with neighbors. Dick Lieb - 1 Bodega Avenue Representatives of Boys and Girls Club have spoken with City Recreation Directors in the past - the City does not have a use for the property; a duplex project would be low -key - not a high traffic generation project; there is a possibility of 3 units for this site. Marge H_odany_ - 1100 F Street member of McNear Park Neighborhood Association; will other parcels adjacent to property in _question also have the capability of building more units if this rezone natse0 (AnSwPr - _ question Q'atmnnc - VAC \ Commission Discussion Commissioner Tarr - not comfortable with rezoning - traffic will be intensified in this neighborhood. Commissioner Parkerson - because of tonight's comments, other uses should be explored (i.e. outdoor play area, off - street parking); additional residences should not be added; rezoning should be denied. Commissioner Bennett - Rezoning /GP Amendment should go ahead. Commissioner Rahman - Has City considered parking lot or some other use for this lot? K 454 Director Salmons - -would not make economic sense for the City to. purchase this property; R- 15,000 zoning district could be used which would limit development to two units. Commissioner Nelson - Concerns of neighborhood need to be weighed against needs of Boys and Girls Club; suggest limitation to two units. The public hearing was closed. A.motion was made by °Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Conunissioner Rahman to recommend to the City Council adoption of ,a Negative Declaration based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER PARBERSON: No COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR:. No CHAIRMAN LIBARLE Abstain COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes Findings 1. 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 selfsustaining levels. , threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endan ered p lant or animal ,or` eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history, or prehistory because the project site is located in an already urbanized area. 2. The,project does not have the potential to achieve short -term to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. 3. The. project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 4. The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial . adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 5. The ro'ect is consistent with and further promotes the objectives, goals, and policies of the General Plan, Land Use and Housing elements to encourage "in- fill" development. A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to recommend approval to the City Council of a General Plan Land Use Designation Amendment from Public Institutional to Urban Diversified .(5.1 to 10 du /ac) for a portion of 426 8th Street (AP No. 008- 294 -14), and from Urban Standard (2.1 to X5.0 du /ac) to Urban Diversified, for properties located at 410, 414,, 416 and 41& 8th Street and 801 and 803 T" Street (AP No. 008- 294 -5, 7, 13, 15, 16), based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: No COMNIISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER;RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes (supports through R- 15,000 zoning) General Plan Amendment with limited density 455 1 i L CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Abstain COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes Findings; 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan because the site is near other "Urban Diversified" areas and is well within the Urban Limit Line, and the relatively small increase in development potential resulting from the change will not impact the* overall growth and development pattern for the area. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment will support the General Plan policy of limiting "sprawl" by encouraging "in- fill" development in already urbanized neighborhoods. 3. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest because it represents the best and highest use of the land and will support the General Plan, Housing Element. objective of providing a variety of housing opportunities for the residents of Petaluma. 4. The potential impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare because potential visual impacts of any additional multi -unit development can be mitigated through Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee(SPARC) review. 5. The proposed General'Plan Amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). The addition of any dwelling units to the existing single family .homes or the development of a small multiple unit project, on the vacant Boys and Girls Club land would be exempt from processing under CEQA but would require SPARC Approval. 6. The proposed General Plan.Amendment will correct the inconsistency between the existing zoning designation and the actual development at 410 Eighth Street and 801 and 803 "F" Street. A motions was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to recommend to the City Council rezoning from R -16500 (One Family Residential) to RC � Compact Single Family Residential) pro erties located at 414, 416, 418 and 426 8th Street AP No. 008- 294 -05, 7, 8, 13, 14 (portion), based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: No (not proper planning) COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: No CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Abstain (THIS MOTION FAILS BECAUSE A "SUPER - MAJORITY" IS NECESSARY ON A REZONING MOTION.) 5 456 Findings 1. The proposed Rezoning is in .general conformity with the General Plan and will achieve consistency between the zoning and the proposed "Urban Diversified" land use designation. 2. Because the site is adjacent to sites already developed with duplexes, the proposed change will result in a logical continuation of the higher density residential area. 3. The proposed zoning will allow more flexibility in development design of the vacant portion of the site. 4. Public necessity, convenience, and general welfare clearly permit the adoption of the proposed amendment. A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr to rezone this property to R -1 5,000 - the motion failed due to lack of a second motion. IV. CITY OF PETALUMA, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, FILE NO. GPA91003 (WS) 1. Consideration of a Negative Declaration of environmental impact related to the following action: a. Consideration of a General Plan amendment to the Urban Limit Line to include a 33 acre parcel off of .East Washington Street adjacent to the Petaluma Municipal Airport (AP No. 136- 070 -19) and designation as Urban Separator. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Rod Metzler Empire Golf - Fee structures and controls are contained in the golf course lease; play by area high schools will be welcomed. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMIVIISS�IONER PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER .TARR: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes —Findings 1. The project, as conditioned, does not have the ;potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause 457 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 project, as :conditioned, does not have the potential to achieve short -term to the disadvantage of long =term, environmental goals. 3. Tle project, as conditioned, .does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. CO 4. The project, as conditioned, does not have environmental effects which will cause (7) substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. O 5. The project is consistent with and further promotes the objectives, goals, and policies of the General Plan. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to recommend to the City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment to include the 33 -acre parcel (Assessor Parcel Number 136 - 070 -19) within the Urban Limit Line and designate it as Urban Separator based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMM18SIONER TARR: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes Findings: 1. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest to provide -for public recreation opportunities and ensure compatibility with airport operations. 2. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan and any implementatiori programs that may be affected. 3. The potential impacts of the proposed amendment have been assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 4. The proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ADJOURNMENT 8:45 PM. min0723 , / pc -min4 7