HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/24/2004 Planning Commission Minutes - February 24, 2004
1
p;.I, tr . City of Petaluma, California
41g_ City Council Chambers
Rf i , City Hall, 11 English Street
'O ,1!k
.n , Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778-4301/Fax 707/778-4498
'a -E-Mail planniu¢na,ci:petaluma.ea.us
I85,
..__,. Web Page http://www.ci.pefaluina.ca.us
2
3 Planning Commission Minutes
4 February 24,2004 - 7:00 PM
5
6 Commissioners: Present:, Asselmeier, Barrett, Dargie*, McAllister, Rose, von Raesfeld
7 Absent: Harris
8 * Chair
9
10 Staff: George White,Assistant Director, Community Development
11 Irene Borba, Senior Planner
12 Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary
13
14
15 ROLL CALL:
16 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
17 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of February 10 were approved as presented. M/S
18 Barrett/Asselmeier, 5-0. McAllister abstained. Notation from February 20, 2004 not
19 relevant.
20 PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
21 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None
' 22 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None
23 CORRESPONDENCE: None
24 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was,read.
25 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
26
27 •
28 Public hearing began: @ 7:00
29
30 PUBLIC HEARING:
31 OLD BUSINESS:
32 "
33 PUBLIC HEARING:
34 OLD.BUSINESS:
35
Planning Commission Minutes - February 24, 2004
1 I. PAULA LANE SUBDIVISION, 431 Paula Lane (corner of Paula Lane and
2 Sunset Drive)
3 AP No.: 019 4080-009 and'019-080-010
4 File: ANX01002,GPA01002,PRZ01003, SPC01048 and TSM01003
5 Planner: Irene T. Borba
6
7 Applicant is requesting for a recommendation to the City Council of a proposal for
8 21 residential units on two contiguous parcels outside City limits but within the.
9 Urban Growth,Boundaries (UGB) totaling 11'22-acres. The proposal requires a
10 General Plan Amendment, Pre-zoning, Tentative Subdivision Map, Annexation,
11 and Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
12
13 Continued from February 10, 2004.
14
n Irene Borba presented the staff report.
16
17 Steve Ryder Mission Valley Properties:' Requested that the Commission take action this
18 evening.
19
20 Chair Dargie: Accept staff's point of view,believe the Commission needs to consider the
21 General Plan Amendment first.
22
23 Commissioner Rose: References to Sunset Drive are not relevant here. Believe this
24 project is too dense — the rural designation is better suited for this project. Inforniation
25 that has been submitted is not the proper direction — nothing to resemble-.an Urban
26 Separator. Aside from the other issues this is a policy issue and not appropriate with this
27 part of Petaluma.
28
29 Commissioner Asselmeier: I share similar concerns that are directly related to the
30 density of this project and directly related to a policy issue. I am not inclined'to approve
31 this project. Do not believe there is a public benefit— want to see the feathering concept
32 applied at this particular location. This much density should be downtown and infill
33 projects.
34
35 Commissioner von Raesfeld: The project is parcel specific rewriting the/General Plan
36 and the Zoning Ordinance so I cannot support the density and the Annexation. •
37
' 38 Commissioner Barrett: Concur with the other Commissioners and share the concerns;of
39 piecemeal develolpment: Project is too dense. Many new projects on the West side
40 impact and defeat the purpose of the General Plan.
41 If this parcel is going to be looked at for annexation, it needs to keep the current'density.
42
43 Commissioner McAllister: Sunset Drive should not be considered a precedent for this
44 project. If the project is developed:in this way it is a piecemeal approach which is not
45 appropriate — needs to be looked::at more globally regarding infrastructure, traffic and
46 drainage issues.
47
2
•
Planning Commission Minutes - February 24, 2004
1 Chair Dargie: On the General Plan map property, to east is a suburban designation and
2 the property in question is a rural designation. Read from the General Plan regarding the
3 urban limit line. Based on this quote I believe a rural designation is appropriate.
4
5 Commissioner McAllister: Wildlife could be a global issue to this area of Petaluma. The
6 badger issue may not'be limited to just this site.
7
8 Commissioner Barrett: Do not believe it is out of line to give a laundry list of issues.
9
10 Commissioner Asselmeier: Want to see if we can discuss some of the issues —believe it
11 would be helpful to the Council.
12
13 Commissioner Barrett: Issues such as traffic, wildlife corridor, and drainage are impacts
i14 as a result of the piecemealing of some of the new the west side developments.
15
16 MIS Barrett/ Mc/Allister to recommend to the City Council denial of the General Plan
17 Amendment and, by extension, the Pre-zoning, Tentative Subdivision Map and
18 Annexation requests due to the proposed increase in density, inconsistency with the
19 feathering/urban separator polices in the existing General Plan, coordination with the
20 General Plan update and impacts and issues related to increased traffic, insufficient
21 infrastructure, drainage, and potential'impacts to an existing wildlife corridor. 6-0, Harris
22 absent.
23
24
25 II. LIAISON REPORTS:
26
27 a. City Council: None
28 b. SPARC: Conditions for the Theater District; Victory Chevrolet skylights
29 and trash enclosure; McNear Peninsula Park; Sonoma Joes Casino (101
30 Casino); Clover Stornetta truck parking.
31 c. Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee: Southgate III was reviewed;
32 Dutra Quarry Project and Riverview projects and discussion regarding
33 connectivity of these projects.
34 • d. Tree Advisory Committee: Tree Committee would like a representative
35 and Teresa will continue.
36
37
38 Adjournment: 7:50
39
40
41
42
3