Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/25/19871 • 0� PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL August 25, 1987 Tuesday, 7 :00 p.m. PETALUMA, CALIF. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Bennett, Doyle, Parkerson, Read, Sobel, Tarr Libarle STAFF: Warren Salmons, Planning Director Pamela Tuft, Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter, Associate Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of August 11, 1987 were approved as ;presented. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no speakers. COMMISSIONER COMMENT There were no speakers. CORRESPONDENCE None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT None. COMM`ISSIONER'S REPORT: Request for update on Phoenix Theater provided by Director Salmons) . Presentation of award from Cal- Chapter APA for 1987 -2005 General Plan. OLD BUSINESS I. MCNEAR HILL RESIDENTIAL PUD, PETALUMA BOULEVARD SOUTH, AP NO's 006 - 450 -04, 13 AND 006 - 460 -01, 06, (File No. 6.839) . 1. Continued consideration of EIQ. �J 312 2. Continued consideration of Vesting Tentative Map for 198 -unit residential condominiums. This public hearing was closed at the August 11 meeting. At the request of the applicant, this item was continued to the meeting of 10/13/87. NEW BUSINESS II. PETALUMA CENTER, SANTA ROSA JUNIOR COLLEGE, ELY BLVD. AP NO. 136- 120 -01, (File 11.851) . 1. Consideration of Draft Environmental Impact Report for 40 acre Satellite Campus Facility. The public hearing was opened. -SPEAKERS: Larry Finkle - 1736 Kohoutek Court - 1. Will Ely Boulevard between Corona Road and East Washington Street be adequate in terms of width, signals, overall design, and police surveillance to accommodate all projected traffic? 2. What will the effects of this project be on existing residences? Susan Nelson - Brelje and Race, Engineers on planning team for Junior College proposal. The public hearing was closed. The following Commission comments were made: 1. What will the effects of this project be on the commercial nursery on the adjacent property to the west? (Tarr) 2. What will the traffic effects of this project be in a scenario without the proposed Rainier Avenue /US 101 and Corona /U'S 101 overpasses and interchange which may not be constructed for a long, indefinate time? (Bennett) 3. What are the effects of the project on rainwater runoff and floodwater . displacement? (Read) 4. Are there special construction hazards inherent in the site's soils that may limit building size or location? Are mitigative construction techniques unusually onerous? (Read) 5. In response to the Police Department's comments, are there other adequate alternatives to providing City police on campus? (Sobel) 1 313 6. Are there more alternatives to automobile transportation to the site? The Commission is especially interested in actions that may be implemented by the Center, such as shuttle buses, off -site parking, costly permits to discourage individual drivers, mass transit, transit manager /coordinator (TSM), etc. (Tarr, Parkerson) 7. How does the Center conform to new hazardous waste policies developed by the City Fire Marshal? (Read) 8. The report needs more detail and substantiation in its forecast of sources of future students. In particular, the direction from. which 00 students arrive (e.g. Rohnert Park vs. Novato vs. Sebastopol) will Iq have a significant effect on the validity of the traffic projections O contained in the EIR. Therefore, the source of the students is an ® integral part of the traffic portion of the DEIR. Also, are the Dept. of Finance population projections valid based on actual growth rates? CO ( Sobel) 9. All intersections affected by student traffic must be reviewed in terms of capacity and the Center's contribution to forecasted traffic increases. (Sobel) 10. Verification is requested that the Center will operate primarily as an evening facility. Is this valid as a long term forecast? If not, or if there is a distinct possibility of change, what would the effects be to traffic flow and effects to surrounding land uses? (Read) 11. Verification is requested on whether the traffic projections are based upon (or have been confirmed upon) existing Petaluma Center and /or SRJC traffic /student ratios? If this is not the case, comparisons are sought. (Sobel) 12. A discussion is requested of the growth inducing and other impacts of the Center on areas beyond the Corona /Ely Specific Plan area. (Read) 13. the reference to utility taxes (pg. 3 -56) should be modified to allow for its possibility in the future (e.g. "tax not levied at this time "). If the adoption of a utility tax is a viable mitigation to adverse effects of this project, it should be so stated. (Sobel) 14. A statement reflecting City Council policy restricting jet aircraft use at the municipal airport should be included (page 3 -88) . (Sobel) 15. Re- review of the DEIR by the Fire Department is requested in light of 'the nature of comments by the Police Department and change in Fire Department administration. (Sobel) 16. Generally, more investigation of the project's conformance with the 1987 -2005 General Plan is requested to be included in the DEIR; e.g., land use; policies regarding retention of creeks, view preservation, street improvements, etc.; comparison between the DEIR and GP traffic 'projections; etc. In discussing the Center's impacts on surrounding properties, a "what if" assumption on their future uses may be appropriate; for instance, development of single - family dwellings at 6 3 314 units per acre as a base. Impacts could then be qualified by "greater if adjacent density is greater", or "mitigated if developed as commercial center or lower residential densities next door ", etc. (All) 17. The Center shall also be viewed in particular context of the Corona /Ely Specific Plan area (see No. 18, above) , especially in context of view preservation, architectural compatibility, etc. (Read, Parkerson) A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Sobel to forward this DEIR, including above comments with responses, to the City Council for certification. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER BENNETT - Yes DOYLE - Yes PARKERSON - Yes READ - Yes SOBEL - Yes TARR - Yes LIBARLE - Ab.sent III. PARK PLACE VII, VICINITY MARIA AND RAINIER, AP NO. 136- 111 -28, 29, 30, 32, (File No. 3.256A) . 1. Consideration of PUD Development Plan Amendment. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Robert O'Neil - Young America Homes Jerry Svanda - Young America Homes The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Sobel and seconded by Commissioner Read to recommend issuance of a mitigated negative declaration based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER Findings BENNETT - Yes DOYLE - Yes PARKERSON - Yes READ - Yes SOBEL - Yes TARR - Yes LIBARLE - Absent a. The project as conditionally approved 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 4 R5 LJ 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. b. The project as conditionally approved does not have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage - of long -term, environmental goals. le I hN C. The project's impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, have been mitigated to a level of insignificance through mitigative fees towards public improvements and maintenance, housing for low income persons, etc. d. The project as conditionally approved does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. A motion was made by Commissioner Read and seconded by Commissioner .Doyle- to recommend to City Council approval -of a PUD revision for this project subject to the following findings and conditions as amended: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER Findings BENNETT - Yes DOYLE - Yes PARKERSON - Yes READ - Yes SOBEL - Yes TARR - Yes LIB ARLE - Absent 1. This Development Plan, in conjunction with the greater Park Place PCD, clearly results 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. 2. The PUD District, which does not amend the street pattern, is proposed on property which has a suitable relationship to one (1) or more thoroughfares; and that said thoroughfares are adequate to carry any additional traffic generated by the development. 3. The plan for the proposed development presents a unified and organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby properties and that adequate landscaping and /or screening is included if necessary to insure compatibility. 4. The natural and scenic qualities of the site are protected, with adequate available public and private spaces designated on the Unit Development Plan. 5. The development of the subject property, in the manner proposed by the applicant, will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be= in the best interests of the City and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulation of the City of Petaluma, with the Petaluma General Plan, and with any applicable Environmental Design Plans adopted by the City. r Conditions: (Previously adopted) 1. Proposed building exteriors, carports, trash enclosures, fencing, outdoor lighting, sidewalks, landscaping, irrigation, and mail boxes shall be consistent in design with those approved for Phase VI, subject to approval by the SPARC Committee. 2. Covered parking spaces located at the end of garages shall measure at least eleven (11) feet, six (6) inches in width. All pedestrian walks shall be constructed of concrete. (Newly recommended) 3. The reduction in number of units shall not have any impact, reduction or recalculation on the amount of land previously dedicated to the City (e. g. parks, school sites, etc.) , fees, exactions, and other dedications previously required based on ultimate number of units constructed. 4. A revised development plan and landscape plan showing the approved changes shall be provided to the City in sepia original form within thirty (30) days of SPARC approval of these modifications. 5. Building architecture, exterior materials, colors, landscaping, irrigation design and. materials shall be subject to approval of SPARC. A-11 No existing, mature trees slated --ta--bv--- kept- bT --&PA�6 shall not be removed without prior written approval from the Director of Community Development and Planning. SPARC shall also review tree augmentation possibilities. 6. All previously approved conditions of the Park Place VII PUD, including those by SPARC, shall remain in full effect unless specifically modified by this approval. 7. A bus pull -out shall be provided on Rainier Avenue subject to the approval of staff. 8. Any change in project phasing will require a modification to the final map as required by the City Engineer. 9. Fire hydrant placement is subject to review and approval of the Fire Marshal. 10. The development plan and CC &R's shall be modified to incorporate or address the following: a. Prohibition of garage conversions. 0 31'7 b. Prohibition of recreational vehicles, boat trailers or disabled vehicles in open parking areas. c. Home occupations are permitted subject to Petaluma Zoning Ordinance and provisions of the CC &R's. d. Structural setbacks for future additions, patio covers, and the like, if any, after initial construction, to the main structure or to accessory structures. 11. All landscaping and irrigation systems in public right -of -way areas shall be maintained by an assessment district or other mechanism approved by the Parks and Recreation. Department. Such areas shall Go be designed and maintained to standards acceptable to the City of I' Petaluma. O 12. Maintenance responsibilities of common areas, fences, private utilities, ® and the retained cucalypti must be specified in the amended CC &R's to staff satisfaction. Q 13. The project sponsor shall be required to pay low and moderate income lousing in -lieu fees of an amount to be determined according to the schedule established by City Council Resolution Number 84 -199 N . C . S . , or make alternative arrangements to meet the low and moderate income housing provision requirements of the housing element, subject to approval of the City Council and prior to first sale or rental of any unit or issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs first. 14. Applicant shall participate on a fair share basis in any future assessment districts or other funding mechanisms formed to improve areawide flooding, traffic congestion or other subregional problems for which development of this property is found to be a contributing factor. These "Major Capital Facilities Fees" shall be applicable in an amount to be determined by the City Council payable at time of issuance of earliest building or foundation permit (Please note: The recommended contribution towards the Rainier Avenue /US 101 interchange is a one -time fee equal to $150.00 per projected daily vehicle trips per unit. This is based upon the projected traffic increase in an area impacting the project area and an equal distribution of costs therein) . 15. If buried archaeological materials are discovered during project implementation, work shall halt in the area of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the situation. 16. A separate water meter shall be provided for landscape irrigation systems or as required by staff. 17. Park Place VII is subject to Community Facilities Development Fees as defined in Municipal Code Chapter 17.14. IV. MUIRWOOD GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, ELY BLVD. SOUTH AND FRATES ROAD, DUFFEL FINANCIAL, AP NO.'s 17- 050 -07 & 08. 7 I 1. Consideration of proposed development agreement. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Van Logan representing Duffel Financial and Construction Duffel would agree to reduce term of agreement to 10 years. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Discussion: Commissioner Tarr - Was City Engineer consulted regarding off -site improvements /phasing? Commissioner Sobel - Effect of moratoria; restricting future Councils - needs broader view; future tax and fee potential; further discussion by City Attorney. Commissioner Doyle - Ramifications of legal issues. Commissioner Parkerson - Who fills in $ amount on page 6 of Exhibit D? A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Sobel to recommend approval of the development agreement to the City Council with concerns and responses as discussed above. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER BENNETT - Yes DOYLE - Yes PARKERSON - Yes READ - Yes SOBEL - Yes TARR - Yes LIBARLE - Absent PLANNING MATTER V. MCDOWELL MEADOWS PARK, 215 N. MCDOWELL BLVD., AP NO. 137- 060 -15, (File No. 6.595 -A) . 1. Consideration of request for credit against park fees for- extraordinary park improvements. Ed Love - Leonard Jay Enterprises - stated 20 -30 trees along north property with groundcover would be provided. Jim Raymond - Parks and Recreation Director - Trees and shrubs on three sides as well as a fence on north side. A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Doyle to recommend to City Council extraordinary improvement costs in the amount of $14,000.00 for the McDowell Meadows Park be approved based on the following finding: 1 F MW COMMISSIONER BENNETT - Yes COMMISSIONER DOYLE - Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON -Yes COMMISSIONER READ - Yes COMMISSIONER SOBEL - Yes COMMISSIONER TARR - Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARLE - Absent Findin : 00 1, That it is in the public . interest Nance to allow development and enjoyment p and s to extra improvements to P ublic use Iq improve serviceability to the facilities. O ® ADJOURNMENT: 9:10 AM. 9