Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/25/1981• NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL - APPROVED BY THE PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 25, 1981 REGULAR MEETING PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALIFORNIA Present: Comm.. Harberson*, Popp, Shearer, Tencer, Waite *Arr. 7:59 p.m. Absent: Comm. Head,- Lavin Staff Gregory Freitas, Community Development and Planning Director Warren Salmons, Principal Planner MINUTES: - Minutes of August 4, 1981 and August 11, 1981 were approved as submitted. PETALUMA VALLEY MEDICAL CENTtk ( PETALUMA PROFESSIONAL CENTER) CCAndR'S (Tape 12'=50) Item 6.487 - to re.view Conditions.,_ Covenants and Restrictions, (CCandR'S) prepared for the proposed"Petaluma Valley Medical Center (Petaluma Pro - fessional Center) at North McDowell Blvd and Lynch Creek. Motion introduced by Comm.'Shearer, seconded by Comm. Tencer to approve the'CCandR''S for the Petaluma Valley Medical Center, subject to the recommended condition. AYES: 4 ABSENT: 'Comm. Harberson, Head, Lavin Mr. Freit.as noted that the CCandR''S prepared for'this project by Christensen and Westrich are commendable. OLD. ADOBE /FRATES .RANCH= LAKEVILLE.AND FRATES ROAD - PREZONING AND PLANNED (Tape 53 -1319) COMMUNITY PROGRAM Item 3.252 - to,consider an application to prezone AP Nos. 017 - 030 -17; 17- 050 -03, 04; 017 - 130.-02, 017- 07, 08, 09;.017- 150 -05,, 11, 12,,13, 14 to PCD .(Planned Community District); H_(Hstoric),.and A (Agriculture), The public hearing was opened and closed. Motion introduced by Comm. Tencer; seconded by Comm. Shearer to recommend to the City Council approval.of the recommended prezoning for the PCD (Planned Community District), A.(Agriculture) and H (Historic), based on the recommended PCD findings l through 7,'and the Agricultural and . Historic findings land 2. AYES: 5 ABSENT: Comm. Head, Lavin t' f PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST.25, 1951 OLD ADOBE /FRATES RANCH - PREZONING PLANNED COMMUNITY PROGRAM CONT'D Motion introduced by Comm: Shearer; seconded by Comm. Waite to recommend to the City Council approval of the Planned Community District Program, based on:the recommended findings l through 7 and condition 1, with the modification that a park neighborhood site be identified'within the residential area, and -that the PGandE Substation or future development of the site be regulated by (M L) Light Industrial District'Standards. CO AYES: 5 ABSENT: Comm. Head, Lavin T� COMMENTS Staff Recommendation ' - Maximum density shall not exceed those established by the General Plan at .six dwelling units per acre.excluding planned golf course areas. Bill Murphy - Questionned the intent to not count the golf course land to calculate the overall density. Mr. Murphy requested this item be resolved to reflect 630 units as proposed. Staff Recommendation- Applicants propose a plan whereby affordable low and. moderate;cost homes will be developed in accord with the target percentages as established by City Council and the City's updated Housing Element.. Units may be off site, however,, the plan shall be prepared and implemented prior to ng (OABP #1) O1d,Adobe Business Park Phase,Ill of the business park. Bill Murphy - This.is a condition that makes sense.,_ but what if for some reason i,t were impossible to implement such a plan in the future? Perhaps he could work with other developers to meet. the needs. This should be a negotiable item. Staff Recommendation - A scenic .easement shall be- provided covering the entire golf course except the clubhouse and maintenance building areas. Bill Murphy - The golf course will be owner•by the Petaluma'Golf and Country . Club and 'any,such restrictions will be done their concurrence. He noted the Peta" and Country Club intends on keeping the as a golf course for any -forseeable future. Mr. Murphy could not commit on the PG &CC'S behalf. Bill Murphy The airport outer transition zone needs further clarification. Staff believes >the transition zone co`.mesin at a different location than the developer The:14eveloper does not want to locate residences in any way that will jeopardize; the airport or the safety of the p'eople.that live there. Staff Recommendat'ion'- The Adobe Creek channel and setback area shall.provide for a minimum :ofFa" thirty {3.0) foot setback from top'of bank with 4:1 maximum bank slope. -2- l Bill Murphy - Their engineer indicates the ratio could range from 2:1 to 4:1. They would like to see what effect this would have on the plan for the creek. Requested this item be open for discussion, but the intent is understood. Bill Murphy y- .I_t is:no.t their intent to disturb the archaeological sites.. The golf course will be planned around them and these sites will be pre- served. Bill Murphy - .Regarding golf course construction preceding the business park or`resid'ential development - they cannot do that. They would-be willing to stipulate that funds for,golf course construction would be banked or bond- ed for., so the construct -ion would be guaranteed to be completed in a form satisfactory to the City. Bu -t7; for them to take one or two years .build a -golf course and then begin the. residential construction, would not be financially feasible. Gregory Freitas - The density that is applicable to an area is - based upon the General Plan. The amount of acreage shown for residential development on the plan is.approximately 85 acres which is calculated out at 6- units per acre. The PUD vehicle allows that area to be shifted, within whatever the plan might.be generated.: The General Plan does not permit the shifting of densities. Technically, there.may be a problem. In order to accomplish the proposed .development, it may take further General Plan amendments. The General Plan was just amended to show 85 acres, more.or less, in residential, at 6 units per acre. The approach would be.not to redesignate the golf course area as. shown on the General Plan, but to change the-density shown in the residential area to match it with the overall number of units proposed in the development plan. If need.be, the .time to do this would be after the first or second phase of development. Mr.. Murphy —Asked if, after developing the first phase and the second phase, and third phase,, whether he might ' -wind up with 20 or 30 acres with no density, if this is not rectified.. It does not make sense to start with a• density trade -off in.the first phase, if there is no assurance that the last phase will go some where. This is a technical planning problem that could be very expensive to me (Murphy) to start off with the, assumption that something might happen in the future. It is a matter of knowing what I have when I start. Comm. Harberson explained the reason:for.thi's is that when the General Plan Amendment was considered by the Commission and the Council; the golf course was shown as.non- residential. 'It was shown as golf course and therefore the density shown was s'trict'ly for the remaining areas.. The density is the same; we are talking about 83 acres .over .105 acres. The only way the density can be changed on the existing residential land, say '8 per acre; is with nothing less than a General Plan - Amendment. Bill White, developer - It is not their position to ask for a- free'ride or for a more advantageous situation. It was suggested that prior to the Tentative Map, the Lakeville Highway area be dedicated. Mr. White considered this an un- reasonable request and felt they should not have-to make improvements of -3 189 Lakeville Highway until the land d'evelopes. The intersection may have to be in the first phase. Air. White suggested working with the City Engineer as to traffic demands. He would like to have some flexib ility as to whether and when.the street improvements are required, Bill White - Soil Conditions - the main requirements are that the Soils Engineer certify that whatever.is built is engineering and structurally sound. Bilh White - They will work with the.City' on the.traff is situation on Lakeville Highway In any way that is desired. They will pay their full fair share along with the other people as they develop property along the Lakeville area. 0 Bill White - 5 acre minimum lot size - They cannot say they will have two or (� three acre parcels. It is their intention to go for the - larger parcels, the three to:'ten acre size. To require a minimum lot size does not make sense. It is their intention that- the golf course b'e'a total condition of any of the business and'residential phases. He is in disagreement with the staff report, but it might be possible to work these things out and also work out some of these other items out before the Council hearing.. PLANNING`MATTERS Mr. Fr.eit!as informed the Commission that due to the holiday; the next Commission Meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 9, 1981. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. -4- 190 PETALUMA VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER - N MC DOWELL BLVD /LYNCH CREEK 6.487 Condition The CCandR "S,shall include statements permitting the City of Petaluma to enforce the provisions of the document, and permitting the City to review and approve any future changes to the document-,.' The required wording shall be subject to approval'of the City Attorney prior to Final Map approval. a I'm OLD ADOBE /FRATFS RANQi PLANNED COMMUNITY PROGRAM FINDINGS . 1. That'the development proposed is in substantial harmony with the General Plan of the City of Petaluma, and is or can be coordinated with existing and planned development of the surrounding area. 2. That:the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate 4 to serve the proposed and the anticipated traffic which will be co generated thereby. 3. The facts suhnitted with the application and presented at the hearing establish that: 4. Development of the P -C District will be initiated within a reasonable time by submittal of an: application for a Planned Unit.Development Permit, or other appropriate action. 5.. In the case of proposed residential development, that such development will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability; that it will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding area; and that the sites proposed for public facilities, such,as school, playgrouiids and parks are adequate to serve the the anticipated population and are acceptable to'the public authorities having jurisdiction.thereof. 6. In the case of-proposed industrial.or research uses, that such devel- opment will be appropriate in area, location and overall planning to the purpose intended; that the design and development standards are such as to create an industrial environment of sustained desirability and stability; and that such development will meet in performance standards established by Article 22. 7. In the case of proposed commercial, institutional, recreational, and other, residential uses, that such development will be appropriate in area,.location, and overall planning to the purpose intended; and that such development will.be in hammy with the character of the surrounding areas, PLANNED COMMUN'ITY.PROGRAM CONDITIONS 1. Adoption of Section III of the staff report dated August 25 , 1981 Recommended;R,lanned Community Program" including recommendations sugge'sted.under;,additional factors listed for the business park, resid'entiafl_;,,.golf.course complex and overall project. M-M OLD A1JOBZ /FRATZ p v.:c:: Ii (HISTORIC) and A (AGRICIJLTUItAL) PREZONING FINDINGS 1. That the proposed amendment is in general conformity with the Petaluma General.Plan and any applicable Environmental Plan. 2. That-'the public necessity, convenience and general welfare require or clearly permit the adoption of the proposed amendment. - c-