Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/21/1986oo�o�oA i' CITY OF PETALUMA Planning Commission Public Hearings On The 1986 -2005 Draft General, Plan and EIR 1VlEETING SUMMARY Meeting of - October 21, ,1986 (NOTE: Meeting Summary pages and speakers are numbered beginning with page ! and speaker no 1 of the August 5 summary and continuing consecutively from there. Future summaries will pick -up from where the last page and speaker of the previous summary left off.) I' Commission Members Present: Dan Libarle (arrived at 7:20 p.m.) Fred Tarr, Patti Hlli'goss, Ross Parkerson, Chairperson Nancy Read. .Absent: Michael Davis, Glenn Head Staff /;Consultants Present: Michael Moore, Principal Planner; Naphtalr Knox, Knox and Associates f (General Plan Consultant) The Chairperson. °calle;d the continued 'meeting, of the Planning Commission on the draft Petaluma General Plan and EIR to order at 7 :08 p.,m. The .first item of business was a request from Mrs. Helen King to have her property at '14'00 "I" Street redesignated from Suburban (2.0 du /ac) to a higher density designation to permit her to develop her property at parcel sizes ; (minimum '10,000 square feet) similar to the Adams and Jonas subdivisions that adjoin her property. Even though the public hearing was closed,, Chairperson Read permitted Mrs. hing to address the Commission. She stated that she was' now in the County,, but anticipating annexation, and would ' l -ike to be ; given the same zoning as the Jonas subdivision (R -1 10, 000) .� Mr. Moore stated that `Mrs. King.-had met with Planning Director Warren Salmons about her property and he had told her that he would not support a higher density designation because of the precedent it would set in that area. Commissioner Tarr supported' staff "s position while recognizing that there is - an inconsistency with the Adams and Jonas . subdivisions. Both Commissioners Tarr and Hilligoss were sympathetic to �QGf1�4 Mrs. King's situation but felt that the next higher residential designation, Urban Standard, would be too much of a jump in that area. Commissioner- Tarr moved to recommend staff's Alternative A which left the designation at Suburban. Motion by: Tarr Second by: Parkerson Vote: Favor 4 Oppose 0 Absent: Head, Davis, Libarle Tarr Parkerson Hilligoss Read The next item on the. agenda concerri'ed a letter from Coombs- Development containing a number of comments on the draft General Plan as, it pertains to the proposed marina development.. Chairperson Read allowed Mr. Larry Wasem!, representing. Coombs Development to address the Commission. He stated that they had three principal concerns: (1') the reference in the plan to the project as just a marina,, when it is a marina /office project; (2) the continued reference, in the plan to Schollenberger Park when, according to recorded agreements with the County, the land is no longer reserved as a park,; and (3) exemption from the, provisions' of Program 32 of thel draft. Housing Chapter.. Staff .responded that because of the City's past record on developing a marina, and the time remaining until the marina . actually receives; its necessary approvals the generic reference to marina and continuing to include ;Schollenberger Park were appropriate. Mr. Moore also explained that Program 32 was asking that information on potential housing -impact be provided to the Commission and Council. It would then be up to those bodies to determine what mitigation, if any, would be necessary. Commissioner. Hilligoss .asked if an ordinance would be required .before Program 32 would become effective.. Mr. Knox replied that the Program 'wou'ld become effective immediately' upon adoption of the General Plan but that any 'mitigation measures -- such as in -lieu fees -- would have to be instituted by ordinance. Gommi'ssioner Parkerson rem that one of the important principles in the plan was to 'try and foster job creation for Petaluma residents,, and this program will help understand that relationship. There being no further discussion, the Commission acted to -accept the responses as presented and specifically to amend the draft General Plan Land Use Map to show the marina. as Mixed Use instead of Special Commercial and ,amend the definition of Mixed' Use as follows: Mixed U +se ,: Any combination of commercial, office, and/or residential iu.ses. Soi-relicrtes -- tire -- eommerma��xse- is- - k1-n-,- gronri-cl=- door --ar d the - -res i d e n ti al - -i s - locate & -an oar 4floors - - - Gtlr er - times - tlk e - c o mmcrei-a4 is= located- brr= tre= �rorrt pcYrtion��f- deep- �roperties- ,- �rc�= tlae- .resiricrita� 'is-- located -irr- back -. The intent of the : Mixed Use is to allow housing along with commercial uses including but not limited to retail commercial, offices and restaurants. Along Petaluma Blvd. North and Sorrtii and the west _side of _. Petaluma Blvd. South the intent is to 87 E.. allow uses that will not contribute. to furthering the creation of a commercial strip (i..e., fast food, convenience markets and other businesses -that rely on high ;traffic volume) : A property within the Mixed Use designation does not have to include residential. Mixed Use is proposed for both sides of Petaluma Boulevard, from East Washington to Payran; -arr& -from -D- -Street fo- ++,- _Near- +ii -11; for the west s'i'de of Petaluma Blvd_ South south of "E" Street; for the El Rose /B Street Hayes Avenue area near the Crestview Convalescent Hospital, the Train Yard and the southwest corner of Bodega Avenue and Baker Street and the Marina Motion:!by: Parkerson Second' by: Tarr Vote: Favor 4 Oppose 0 Absent: Head, Davis Tarr Abstain: Libarle (due to his late arrival) Parkerson Hilligoss Read i The Commission next considered :amendments to 'the Housing Chapter made in response to the comments from the State Department of Housing and Community Development. Mr.. Knox briefly summarized the changes stating that they were in response to state law. The Commission expressed its satisfaction with the changes. Commissioner Hilligoss asked that the heading on Figure 9 -12: be revised to clarify the information it is preserifing. There was no further discussion. Commissioner Tarr moved. to accept :the revised draft Housing Chapter (pages 165 -202G) as presented. Hotiona -by: Tarr s Second by: Parkerson Vote: i; Favor 5 Oppose 0 Absent: Head, Davis Tarr i Parkerson Hilligoss Read A draft of • the Development Constraints Map was presented to the Commission for its information. Mr. Knox pointed out that the gaps in the Urban."" Limit Line were in areas where the Council is still considering changes. Other data on the map-- _floodway, flood plains, water service limits,.'I°airport zones, and °ag preserve lands - -is informational and does not affect -;underlying land use designations. No action was required on this item. The final item on the agenda was a page by page review of the draft General Plan document in order to get staff and Commission input on the text. (''There was no official action on these changes, but the Commission agreed, on the recommendations by consensus. At the conclusion of the review,, Mr. Moore thanked the Commission for its efforts over the last S8 three months of hearings on the. General Plan; and told the Commissioners that at its next regular meeting of October 28, .1986.,' staff would present - a resolution encompassing all of the recommendation's made to the City Council on. the draft General Plan and EIR,. The meeting was adjourned at '9':30 p'.m. ..