HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/25/2005 Planning Commission Minutes -January 25, 2005
A la City.of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
A c% City Hall, 11 English Street
I /2_;n„t1 .t Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778-4301/Fax 707/778-4498
185.8.,. E-Mail plannin2(a)ci:petaluma:ca.us
- _, _ - Web Page hitp://www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
1
2 Planning Commission Minutes
3 January 25, 2005 7:00 PM
4
5 Commissioners: Present: Asselmeier, Barrett, Canevaro, McAllister, von Raesfeld
6 Absent: Dargie*
7
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 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of December 14, 2004 were approved as
17 submitted. M/S Asselmeier/von Raesfeld
18 PUBLIC COMMENT: None
19 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Granicus streaming video will be implemented on February
20 8, 2005.
21 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Vice Chair Barrett reminded staff to include the
22 election of officers on the next Agenda. Commissioner's received letter from Lomas
23 Development and submitted for the record. .
24 CORRESPONDENCE: None
25 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
26 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
27
28
29 Public hearing began at 7:05 p.m.
30
31 OLD BUSINESS:
32 PUBLIC HEARING:
33
34 I. PARK SQUARE (AKA PARK CENTRAL), Lakeville Highway & Casa
35 Grande Road
36 APN: 005-040-054 and 005-040-055
Planning Commission Minutes - January 25, 2005
Project File No(s). : PUD02006/SPCO2041
2 Planner: Irene Borba
3
4 Applicant is requesting a recommendation to the City Council to .Adopt a
5 Mitigated Negative Declaration and to approve a PCD-Planned Community
6 District,Amendment to the Park Central Planned Community District and a
7 Tentative Parcel Map.
8
9 Continued from September 14,2004.
10
11 Irene Borba presented the staff report.
12
13 Michael 'Hershman, Eagle Lakeville Partners: Requested app roval of the project and
14 introduced Tim Tosta.
15 .
16 Tim Tosta, Attorney: Discussed land use and,presented the changes to the project since
17 the Planning Commission meeting of September, 2004.
18
19 Council Member Canevaro: Expressed concerns, about safe pedestrian crossing at
20 Lakeville Highway and Casa Grande Road.
21 •
22 Tim: The applicant is investigating what can be done.
23
24 Council Member Canevaro: Would like this issue addressed before going to the City
25 Council.
26
27 Commissioner Asselmeier: The PBAC reviewed the project and felt it was safer to have
28 Class II bike path on both sides Technology Lane rather than the Class I path on the
29 project site.
30 •
31 Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked about the phasing of the project.
32
33 Michael Hershman: Will begin the leasing process for the main retail building first.
34
35 Steve Hester: All the site work would be done first for both the retail and residential
36 portions of the proJect. Will begin construction with Bldg 6 and the main recreation area
37 and move along Park Square Lane, west to east. The last phase will be the eastern
38 portion of the site.
39
40 Commissioner Asselmeier: I believe the site amenities should serve the south,side of
41 Technology Lane residents.
42
43 Steve Hester: Reviewed the amenities in.the.Alex Park Central Complex.
44
45 Commissioner Asselmeier: Asked ifthe units will be for sale or lease?
46
47 Steve Hester: We are headed in the direction that the units will be for sale.
2
Planning Commission Minutes-January 25, 2005
1
2 Public hearing opened:
3
4 Bruce Carlson, Radius Development: I oppose this project. I believe commercial
5 development is still very viable here. Steelhead will be buried by residential
6 development and the creek. This is not logical from a use standpoint. This project has a
7 significant financial impact on my property.
8
9 Ed Coyne, Gateway Financial`: Workrite is our tenant. Our issue is compatible uses in an
10 industrial area. There are some preexisting uses which may be a nuisance to the
11 residents. Mixed use is not well defined in the current General Plan. This proposal will
12 not behave like mixed use. At the last meeting you expressed concern about losing
13 industrial land. Mr. Coyne quoted some comments from the previous Planning
14 Commission meeting. Tonight the focus has been proposed on the incremental changes.
15 We were told previously that this would be a managed, for rent project. It will be very
16 different if these are for sale-units.
17
18 Spence Burton, 313 Smith Drive: I have concerns about children crossing Lakeville
19 Highway to go to school. I believe there is a good reason that it is not zoned for
20 residential.
21
22 Public hearing closed:
23
24 Break at 8:35 p.m.
25
26 Meeting resumed at8:45 p.m.
27
28 Public hearing reopened:
29
30 Paul Elmore, RNM Properties: This project impacts the other commercial uses. I
31 support Ed Coyne and Bruce Carlson in their objections of the project. I think the zoning
32 is right as it is. Residential does not fit here.
33
34 Public hearing closed:
35
36 Tim Tota: This project meets the zoning of mixed use. This project is a mix of houses
37 and commercial uses. There is fear instead of knowledge and facts. There is a bus that
38 currently comes across Lakeville to pick up children at the Alexan Park Central units.
•
39 We are committed`to making the intersection safe. We intend to be good neighbors and
40 we feel the industrial uses have fears that are unfounded.
41
42 Commission Comments:
44 Commissioner McAllister: I am appreciative of the changes the applicant has made. P
45 am still troubled by the adjacency issues. I think there is a conflict. I do not want to base
46 land use issues solely on the current market of 2004-2005. The market will work at some
3
Planning Commission Minutes- January 25, 2005
1 point in time. I want to see the parcel that is immediately adjacent to Steelhead be
2 commercial.
3
4 Commissioner von,Raesfeld: What;is the appropriate mixed use for thisrparcel? This is
5 not a.clear black and white issue.
6
7 Commissioner Asselmeier: Thanked the applicant for listening to the comments,of the
8 Commission. The applicant has focused on the specifics of the project. The expectation
9 of the existing surrounding uses is that this would be commercial or industrial. If
10 residential goes in behind, Petaluma Poultry Processors, does that create even more,
11 incompatible uses and the possible loss of industrial uses? I would like to see abetter
12 feathering of the uses, particularly on the parcel next to PPP. Is there the possibility of a
13 revised set of uses?
14
15 Commissioner Barrett: I was here when this project first came to the Planning
16 Commission. The main concern was the noise that is generated from a trucking company
17 on .Casa Grande Road. The Alexan Park Central residents are renters: However, this
18 project,will have home owners and that is much more problematic. The problem is in the
19 use. If the parcel east of Telecom Lane could be another use, :I think there are other
20 issues that could work. Currently the amount of'residential overwhelms Steelhead and
21 Workrite.
22
23 Council Member Canevaro: It is a difficult,parcel. Didn't we already open:the door for
24 residential with Alexan Park Central. Knowing the need for residential, it is difficult to
25 weigh in on what the expectations of the adjacent property owners is. I think the
26 applicant has worked hard and if we did not want to allow this use, we should have told
27 the applicant initially.
28
29 Commissioner McAllister: It was clearly expressed at the last meeting. The applicant
30 has addressed everything except the use.
31
32 Commissioner Barrett: Noted that the minutes of the last meeting: reflected the
33 Commission's concerns about the loss of industrial uses and the incompatibility of uses:
34 I believe you need to look at this for'the.long term instead of doing spot zoning.
35
36 Commissioner Asselmeier: I thought we asked to have the commercial feathered from
37 the industrial to the housing;units. I am leaning,:toward asking the applicant:to look at the
38 property on the east side of Telecom Lane. It would be more compatible with the truck
39 traffic and would help to have a more compatible •mix of uses, possibly commercial
40 condos. We cannot get away from the compatibility of uses.
41
42 Applicant asked for a 5 minute break.
43
44 Meeting resumed at 10:05 p.m.
45
4
Planning Commission Minutes-January 25, 2005
1 Council Member Canevaro: We could possibly.move:forward-on the part of the proposal
2 that is workable. I would like to find a.compatible.;use for the existing land owners and
3 the applicant.
4
5 Tim Tosta: I would like to discuss options and modify the'parcel east of Telecom Lane
6 and move forward on the remainder of the parcel.
7
8 George White: You can go forward with the west parcel - do not know how to process
9 the eastern parcel. -
10
I1 Commissioner Barrett: Can we condition that the eastern parcel be live work or
12 commercial and then it will just have to go to SPARC. Commissioner Barrett polled the
13 commission regarding moving forward in this direction.
14
15 Commissioner McAllister: I believe this is a good direction. However, if the eastern
16 parcel is commercial do'th'e adjacent neighbors agree with this proposal?
17
18 Commissioner von Raesfeld: It is a positive step.
19
20 Commissioner Asselmeier: If we develop sufficient direction I would feel ok about
21 moving it forward. My main concern is the use and I'm willing to give up the green
22 space that was created on the eastern parcel for a change in use.
. 23
24 Commissioner Barrett: Asked the adjacent neighbor to weigh in on the eastern parcel
25 being a commercial use.
26
27 Ed Coyne: Do not think live/work works well. in Petaluma. I think an
28 industrial/commercial or retail use would be better. I still do not want the residential.
29
30 Bruce Carlson: I agree with Ed Coyne. It is a step in the right direction. You will still
31 see residential on both sides of Technology Lane which I believe will be confusing. We
32 still think commercial is a very viable option here. The fundamental problems are the
33 same.
34
35 The Commission discussed definitions of commercial/industrial use. It was the
36 consensus. of the commission that live/work is not appropriate. It would need to be
37 compatible uses with the Lakeville Business Park. The conclusion was commercial,
38 R&D, office and/or retail on the eastern parcel.
39
40 Applicant asked that industrial not be part of the definition.
41
42 George White: Suggested amending the current PCD guidelines and divide into two
43 parcels.
44
45 Commissioner McAllister: Presented some advisory statements to SPARC. Suggested
46 changing the surburbanism of this project by changing the site plan. The streetscape
47 needs a more urban look. The landscape plan also needs to be reworked with a more
5
Planning Commission Minutes- January 25, 2005
1 urban look. Elimination of any lawn that is not useable. Courts along;Lakeville will
2 benefit from an architectural enclosure; otherwise they will,bevery noisy. Would like to
3 see 5% of parking eliminated between',the large retail building and the future commercial
4 bank and.the parking facing Lakeville. It will give it a more urban feel without parking
5 facing Lakeville Highway. Align carports on the triangular piece to be on the property
6 line so there was building mass between building 3 and PPP.
7
8 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Suggestions for SPARC to focus on: designing the
9 live/work units to be different from the apartments; focus on Park Square Lane (needs to
10 look less like a parking lot); look at the design of the carport/garages along the primary
11 entry into the project from Casa Grande.
12
13 Commissioner Barrett: I want to give applicant the option to take out the live/work units
14 on the west side of the project. •
15
16 Commissioner Asselmeier: Bike lanes and parking need clarification. Is there parking
17, on Telecom Lane? Want sidewalks on Casa Grande and Lakeville; Class.II bike lanes,on
18 north and south side of Technology Lane. No barriers to connectivity on Adobe Creek.
19 No obstructions or fences on south east portion of the parcel east of Telecom Lane.
20 These need to be conditions and not a recommendation to SPARC. Want to make.sure
21 there is room for bike lanes, sidewalks,, truck traffic and parking: Want some
22 connectivity and the ability to cross the creek.
23
24 Craig Spaulding, City.Engineer Clarified that there is parking on both sides of Telecom
25 Lane.
26
27 George White: There is no place for a bridge to land on the Lakeville Business Park side
28 of the creek.
29
30 Commissioner McAllister: Can we condition the 5% reduction in parking between the
31 retail building and the bank building.on Lakeville?.
32
33 Applicant: Asked that it be.a recommendation not a condition.
34
35 Commissioner McAllister: Asked that Council consider the idea of for sale units vs. for
36 rent.
37
38 Steve Hester: We are proceeding with for sale units,however, we would have an on site
39 manager.
40
41 Commissioner Barrett: I am not as concerned about for sale units with the buffer of the
42 east parcel.
43
44 Recommendations from the Commission to SPARC:
45 •. Changing the suburban nature with the site plan
46 • Streetscape to have a more urban look
6
Planning Commission Minutes- January 25, 2005
1 • Rework landscape with a more urban look — eliminate lawn that is not required
2 for recreational..open spaces
3 • Plazas between buildings along Lakeville Highway would benefit from an
4 architectural enclosure
5 •
6
• Eliminate 5% of the site parking which shall include eliminating parking between
the large retail and the future commercial parcel
7 • Design live/work units to have a different look than the apartments and be
8 transitional from commercial buildings
9 • Focus on Park Square Lane—needs to look less like a parking lot and more like a
10 street
11 • Design of carport/garages along the primary entry into the project from Casa
12 Grande Road
13
14 M/S von Raesfeld/Canevaro to forward recommendation to the City Council to Adopt a
15 Mitigated Negative Declaration and to approve a PCD-Planned Community District
16 Amendment to the Park Central-Planned Community District and a Tentative Parcel Map
17 subject to the amended Conditions of Approval including the recommended direction to
18 SPARC; the amended PCD Guidelines changing the East and West parcels with the East
19 Parcel (behind PPP) not to include any residential uses, but commercial, R&D, office
20 and/or retails uses only; and the addition of sidewalks on Casa Grande and Lakeville;
21 Class Il bike lanes on north and south side of Technology Lane instead of on the project
22 site itself, no barriers to the connectivity on Adobe Creek, no obstructions or fences on
23 the south east portion of the parcel east of Telecom Lane. 5-0, Dargie absent.
24
25
26 II. LIAISON REPORTS:
27 a. City Council: None
28 b. SPARC: None
29 c. Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee: None
30 d. Tree Advisory Committee: None
31
32 Adjournment: 11:10
33
34
35
36 5:\PC-Planning Commission\Minutes\PC Minutes 05\012505 don
7