HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 90-183 06/04/19901
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Resolution No. 90-183 N ~.5.
of the City of Petaluma, California
DENYING APPEAL BY H-Y-H CORPORATION OF
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION/PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT REZONING
AND UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR TWIN CREEKS SUBDIVISION
AP NO's 007-221-19, 136-100-26 and 33
WHEREAS, on April 24, 1989, after two public hearings on the matter, the Planning
Commission denied an application for a rezoning to Planned Unit District and Unit
Development Plan for Twin Creeks Subdivision (AP No's 007.221-19, 136-100-26 and 33);
anal
13 WHEREAS an appeal of the .Planning Commission's decision was appropriately filed on
14 May 3, 1990 by H-Y-H Corporation; and
]5
16 WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on June 4, 1990 to consider this appeal
17 a.nd has considered all. reports, plans, and testimony presented at it's meeting; and
1Q
19 W~IEREAS, the Ci y Council has considered all previously submitted information, reports,
20 plans, and Planning Commission minutes relative to this matter; and
2l
22 WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Planning Commission acted properly in
3 denying this application; and
24
25 ~Tv'HEREAS, the Planning Commission denial was based on evidence supported by the
26 Environmental impact Report, staFf reports and public testimony on this project as stated
27 in tl"~eir findings; gild
7
29 WHEREAS, the Plarrring Cc~mn~ssion acted. based on information provided by the EIR,
30 abency comrr~ents and public testi~na+:y; and
Rcs. n~.....90-183....... N.c.s. 1
1 WHEREAS, the comments, issues and/or matters raised in the staff report of April 24,
2 1990 had been .raised by staff and the Environmental Impact Report sufficiently early to
3 allow the applicant time to respond to the issues; and
4
5 WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act Section 15108 and Government
6 Code 65957 preclude any additional continuance of this item; and
7
8 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission denied the PUD rezoning with the following
9 findings:
1. The Army Corps of Engineers has indicated that an additional twenty feet of
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
redesign of the proposed lots along the Petaluma River, impact the proposed open
space area along the Petaluma River by reducing land available for open space, and
require substantial project redesign.
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.
2
Reso. 90-183 N.C.S.
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
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 ap ropriate 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 aback-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.
Reso. 90-183 N.C.S.
3
18. This development does not protect the natural and scenic qualities of the site. The
site design proposes aback-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.
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,
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.
AND WHEREAS, the Planning Commission denied the PUD Unit Development Plan
with the following findings:
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 a propriate in relation to adjacent
properties and that adequate landscaping/pscreening in included to insure
compatibility. The project failures include inadequate design adjacent to existing
houses on Wilmington to the north, providing aback-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 aback-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 to the Petaluma River. No habitat enhancement is proposed along the
Petaluma River.
Reso. 90-183 N.C.S. 4
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 Clty 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 Apri124, 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.
26 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby denies the appeal
27 of H-Y-H Corporation, thereby denying without prejudice the PUD rezoning and Unit
28 Development Plan, based on the above findings as adopted by the Planning Commission.
29
30 twncreek / council3
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Approved as to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular) (Ac~~i~l~meeting ~--
on the .......[{.t~•-----.._.. day of ...........3~c ....................................... 19......$~Y the
following vote: ...._..._..._.._..,......
ity Attor y
AYES: Tencer, Woolsey, Balshaw, Davis, Vice Mayor Sobel, Mayor Hilligoss
NOES: 0
ABSENT:
ATTEST
CA 10-85
Gbuncil Fil .............. ...
Res. No. ~b- i s~ •.---.•N.C.S.
....... .....................
5