Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/24/2006 City. of Fetaia a, CA • 4 City Council Chambers ' tmyat " City Hall,+11 EuglishEStreet -`` Petaluma,CA 94952 285 t3 _ - Telep hone'707/778-4301/Fax 707/778-4498' E-Mail.,;planning@clpetaluma.ca.us Web Page http:J/www.ci:petaluma.ca.us Planning Commission Minutes • October 24, 2006 - 06:56 Present Will Dargie,Terry Kosewic;John Mills;Karen Nau;Kathy Miller, Christopher Arras, Tanya Sullivan APPROVAL OF MINUTES:October:10 2006(06:59 PM) p. Motion: Approve APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 10,20061 Moved by J6hn Mills; seconded by Chris"topher:Arras. • Vote: Motion carried 7-0. Yes: Will Dargie;Terry Kosewic;John Mills; Karen Nau;Kathy Christopher Arras;Tanya Sullivan PUBLIC COMMENT:OPEN(06i5913M) ' Brian Heim Janice Cader-Thomson • I PUBLIC COMMENT:CLOSED(07:01 PM) DIRECTOR'S REPORT:NONE?(07:01 PM) COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: (07:01 PM) CORRESPONDENCE: Letter dated October 16, 2006,regarding.Silva property.(07:01 PM) APPEAL STATEMENT: Within.fourteen(14)calendar'days following the date:of adecision.of the Planning Commission,the decision!maybe'appealed to the City Council by the'applicant or by any other interested party:,If no'-appeal is made within'that time;the decision shall be final.;An appeaFshall be addressed.to the Council in writing and shall-be filed with the City.Clerk. Said appeal shall be accompanied by the.appealfee as specified by Resolution 2002-114=N.C:S. as adopted by the'City'Council.The appeal shall state specifically the groundsifor the appeal and the'relief sought by the appellant. (07:01 PM) LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT:Personscommenting orally or'inwriting are advised to raise,all pertinent issues at this state of review so that possible solutions may be implemented or adopted at the earliest opportunity:If you'challenge the action taken by the City of Petaluma'in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you'or someone else raised during the public review process; or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or-prior to the conclusion of the public review process. (07:01 PM) CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar items are typically routine in nature and,are considered.for approval and/or • Chair Dargie'said that if this was a project,this would be required. Pamela said this would be continued to date specific,November'14,2006. Council Member.Nau;asked about why some.neighbors weren't notified; Pamela will check,onthis. She. also asked'if the Commission had received all`correspondence;Pamela stated.thatall correspondence up till 6:30 p:m. this evening was included on the dais; (Note: Following the meeting, notification of all properties within 500' Was verified.) VI. 1755 Petaluma Boulevard North'—Lands'of Vogensen Pamela explarnedthat the,property owner requested a change to;Medium Densityfrom the existing Rural designation. She.said staff recommends Law Density Residential as it better suit`s the,,topography of the site: Commissioner Sullivan asked for an explanation of the difference in the, topography,of'this site as compared'to the topography of,the townhomes next door. .Pamela explained:thatthe Oak Hill.,Townhomes:were built on aplateautwith ar one-way loopiand°the steep area designated as non-developable open area. She-said;medium density could really "carve" up the hillside: { Commissioner Sullivan said the narrowness of the parcel and the nse in elevation supporte d the low density designation. Commissioner Mills asked if the Boulevard was the onlyfaccess: Pamela said:she wasn't'awareof any easements. He said that it seemed the road to OakhrllTeriace could.be extended Pamela'sard she•would research this He felt that'there'was a safety issue and that connecting the;two properties wouldbe of benefit. Pamela said this would be part of an an'entitlenherif process but she thought the road was private. Commissioner Kosewic stated that the property was located.within the City limits and•currently2zoned Rural. He said that whatever is done would increases:the density and'he supported;Low Density.)Pamela agreed d that no ownzoning would obci r with the recommended designation. Commissioner Mills:added that since this would increase the density,.that l8 units to the acre was too dense and would require clustering:because of the topography. He supported staff's recommendationithat'would. be two;densities higher than current.. PUBLIC COMMENT IoneVogensen,.propertysowner stated sliehad:an easement from the,,nextproperty.,Shesaidher property-is the same elevation as;next,door and gave a,history of the area She did not understand„whyit,c'ouldn't be medium density: • Bryant Moynihan — Nexus Realty— he is helping Mrs. Vogensen along with realtor Lucy Webb:. He explained there was a deeded easement`with access from Acorne Drives and'public>water and-sewer.at the property;line. He said at onetime another phase,of;townhomes was,planned,but it didn't work out He said they-hadiplans•tb.allo*Tor the density necessary totsupport workforce.housing.as well as senior housing. Henoted,that-the topography is similar to where the-townhomes are:'located,and the Vogensen' property could follow a similar plan to,the townhomes with access from Petaluma Boulevard Northtas well:. He. added that another neighbor was interested in selling his adjoining property: He said that with-Medium Density designation this would support the lower cost of the homes:, Commissioner Kosewic!asked''how'large the water andsewer mains'were Ind how many acres., recommendation by.the Planning Commission with.a-single action. The Planning•Commission may remove items from the Consent Calendar for discussion If members of the public'wish to comment on Consent Calendar items,they should doso.during"Public Comment." (07:02 PM); Commissioner Sullivan requested to remove the item from the consent calendar for discussion I. THE MARKET, 1002 Lakeville Street APN: 005-060-088 File: 06-PCN-0442 Planner: Kim Jordan Staff Report 1002 Lakeville.Street Commissioner Sullivan Council Member.Nau Kim Jordan John Broderson Council Member Nau Commissioner Sullivan Commissioner Mills Commissioner Arras Motion: Approve item#1 Moved by John Mills, seconded by Kathy Miller. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. Yes: Will Dargie; Terry Kosewic;,John Mills;.Karen Nau;Kathy MiIler,;Chiistopher Arras;Tanya Sullivan • PUBLIC HEARING: (07:13 PM) OLD BUSINESS: (07:13 PM) II. DRAFT GENERAL PLAN 2025-DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(DEIR) • Planners: Pamela Tuft and Scott.Duiven(07:13 PM) General Plan Information I. Copeland Street Extension General Plan Administration Director Pamela Tuft introduced .the Copeland Street Extension area for Commission comment and.ideas. She said that an important role of this extension was to provide a pedestrian and bicycle link from Lakeville to Washington Street. Creation of a Plan Line following the General Plan would fiutherdefine location. Commissioner Mills asked how the private property would be acquired to create access. Mr. Moynihan answered the sewer was six-inches;,wafer'mains were eight inches; acreage was 3.9. He said,he would ask•for-55.homes but-didn't think this could be±accomplished.-:he thought toibe consistent with other land uses, 40 units would be suitable. He said they were asking for the maximum but understood it would be up to the City to determine. He said the density would be determined-by the topography, access and public utilities. Commissioner Kosewic'said he saw this as no different from-other projects and that the developer would start at 55, not lewer, He said being consistent with the proposed GP and the townhome development occurred many years ago and having one parcel. this density doesn't support continuing this higher density. Mr. Moynihan noted the property across the street was listed as medium„density and further up the Boulevard,is'higher density as well He said they wanted to look forward to accommodate.housing"needs and would beconsistent with the rest of the higher density parcels. Randy Raabe—Property Owner—He is a long-time resident of Petaluma and noted the annexationplanned for Jessie Lane as single,family-homes'and he supports this density. He mentioned Malik, the topography of the Vogensens' property; growth in.the com unity; consideration of the neighborhood aesthetics; growth control;higher density would lower property values; and•wanted'to keep the perimeters of Petaluma rural. He did not support.density upgrades.for these parcels. Alvin Cooper—;Property:Owner—He explained that he is a long-time'Petaluma resident and purchased the property, next to the Vogensens^as an investment.. He was,against.building,more;homes in the west hills (where he lives). He wanted additional density as was planned for across the street to provide for the housing needs over sthe°next twenty-five years. He felt this would be the least intrusive and wouldmatch, the property next door. Chair Dargie asked if he was requesting•his property to have increased density as well. • Mr. Cooper said he believed,whomever purchased'the Vogensens' property would want his as well and he was a willing seller: • Commissioner,Mills asked if Mr: Cooper was aware of-the General Plan process and the Vogensen's' request for higher density and why he-hadn't asked for addition density as well. Mr. Cooper said he wasn't aware of the GP process and this property wasn't a priority right now Commissioner Mills suggested recommending Mr: Cooper's property be '.included with the same designation as the Vogensens. Mr..,Cooper said he supported this as it would add value to his°house. He mentioned he'wouldput<in sidewalks(this would be required with-any entitlement). If the Parks Commission would allow him to"add advertsing'for his business, he would provide;park improvements M areaparks (Mg. sidewalks, etc:)'. He said the Commission would wish that it had made the property high density in the future to provide infrll. • Council Member Nad asked if the-addition of the Cooper property would require renoticing the neighbors and about deeded_easements aiid3the r affect on the VogensehsI'property potential. Pamela said thatnotices-were;sent to.property owners within 500'.ofthe site. she said She would clarify with the CityaaAttomey if this proposal'would;require:a-new.notice. She reminded them thattheyare the reviewing body and can recommend any,land use changes to the City Council during€the public hearing time period. A recommendation for Low Density would notrequire.renoticing, as that°designation was' includedin the Draft Plan. Commissioner Mills{asked ito see astaff reportadentifying the,ieasement and a staff report to include the Cooper property. The Commissionagreed Pamela•could'bring;this•back. • • Pamela explained that she has met,,with the property owners:and that the future right-of-ways would be acquired from a willing'seller if possible, during the development review process. Eminent domain could be used if a seller wasn'twilltng or if it was firiancially;beneficial to the seller to use enunent domain. Commissioner;Kosewicasked about the bridge and how it would be funded. Pamela explained the bridge would.need the same number of lanes.and have the same clearance as the bridge built with the Corps of Engineers help'for.the flood,project. She.said theprojectwould be discussed in the Public Improvement. portion of the Capital Improvement Program for the General Plan Implementation Plan. Various funding sources such as redevelopment, gas taxes and private developers would finance the project: She'said)this-doesn't guarantee:it would;be:constructed by the end of the new GP in 2025. Commissioner Mills noted the.Petaluma`.River Access Plan.asked'if this.bridge,wasprimarily for bicycle and pedestrian usage or traffic relief. He said SPARC is reviewing a proposal for a bridge north of the Creamery. Pamela said the bridges would serve two different modes of traffic -to provide a safe crossing for pedestrians'and help local.traffic-flow-off Washington Street and Water Street. PUBLIC COMMENT Chris McCarthy—Attorney for Mehand'Betty Silva:-presented-his`proposal..with exhibits I &2. He said the main objection was to the "eating•away of land in the T-5 CPSP" development area: He suggested a compromise was needed. He said his clients!didn't object to streets and the density needed,but they wanted to transfer density back to the property from the acreage taken up by the three streets that would be necessary on his client's two parcels. Commissioner Mills asked Mr.McCarthy if any additional language-is needed,or if he would accept staff's recommendations. • Mr. McCarthy said he wanted clarification of the density issue relating to`his property owners parcels. Pamela mentioned trying to achieve the[property owners developinen[,goals and satisfy the greater needs of the community was necessary. She said this could be brought to the Commission with a/policy to address density transfer. She wanted the Planning Commission's input on the changes and asked for majority of the Commission to indicate if this was their.desire. Commissioner Sullivan said she would:support if the text-included a.recommendation that doesn't include the terminology 'Density Transfer": She said this was because,the'current'densities weren't clear in the CPSP and what would be proposed with the transfer of density. Pamela.explained,that since the+Land Use wasn't changed„the densities weren't included. The Commissibnagreed to'bring.back this item. II. Old Pomeroy Site,Hopper Street,Lands of Washington Group Pamela introduced,and explained the various properties' location,and designation. She mentioned'a letter from Washington.StreetInteinational requesting an amendment to change from River Dependent to Mixed Use. She said` .this change was:notrecommended. Commissioner Kosewictasked lithe designation was changed to Mixed Use if the City would lose the Corps of Engineer's'dredging.. , • • Commissioner-Kosewic waritedtoumake a Motion in;support of staff recommendations and.bringback the Cooper,property: He'discussed themoticing requirement and`.the:Cooper,property:designation. He asked if the.Commission would support the Vogensen's property as medium density with the inclusion of the Cooper property as,the same. - - Commissioner Arras wanted to look at•the.pros and cons of this suggestion: Commissioner Miller and Sullivamsupported-low density on'both properties Commissioner-Kosewic!:supported low density to maintain feathering on the outskirts of town: Chair-Dargie,asked"if the Commission favored:the continuation;of the Low Density designation With the majority of four Commissioners supporting the Low Density designation as the preferred designatiom. including the Cooper property: VII. Lands-of St:Vincent DePaul; 624 Cherry Street Pamela explained that the'school had purchased this`16,000 square.foot lot, surrounded'by'school property. She said that if they have future development plans, the improvements to Cherry Street-should'be pair of the;proposal Commissioner Mills asked if the designations would mean the same as the old Urban Standard would become,tha'New LOW Density. Pamela said those two residential would remain.consistent;,.;however, this property-would,be changed to • Education. All commissioners;supported this. VIII.:Lands of Davidon, (Scott Ranch),Windsor Drive @"D" Street Pamela introduced„these parcels reminding the public this was not an entitlement discussion, only the General Plan land designations were. being discussed. She mentioned the group; ”Petalumans for Responsible Planning,"had sent a press release-asking to increase the park size from a recommeirdeditnree- acre?neighborhood park to a six-acre community-park;-they also mentioned their desire'to pufcliase the property. She explained that Davidon had indicated to her that they were not willing to sell;or-mcrease the park size. She ,said;the Recreation,. Music and Parks recommendation was to not change the size or designation: She,said"the designation would°.be Very Low,Density residential, thin)added that the Park Commission'swouldtbe`brought tosthe Planning Commission for review with the redlined.versiomofthe Draft Plan. Commissioner Mills asked for clarification of the difference betweema neighborhood and community park: Pamela explained the difference was in size and-intensity;of use Within the new General :Plan, neighborhood parks wouldrbe dedicated, improved maintained and paid for entirely by the developer,and neighborhood, not the City as in the past: She said Parks Director, Jim Can recommended the neighborhood park designation for this site, and the"recommendation was agreed upon,by the Parks Commission. Commissioner Mills clarified that community parks were for the public's use and neighborhood parks would be mainly for the residents of the surrounding neighborhood.•He asked about the creek comdor. Pamela said creekcomdorwould be'100':(later clarified to 100' fromC/L),and this would be included in the 23 acres of open space ancPtirbair Separator called for m;the Draft Plan:. Access to Helen Putnam Park would be included within the open spacearea. • Pamela stated; "Yes." She explained that commercial tonnage,was necessary to continue'the dredging. She said the Commission could Weigh,losing River;Dependent and gaining"Mixed Use but-itSwouldn't need to be done immediately. The site,although how vacant,is very suited tol Hirer dependent:uses. Commissioner Kosewic asked about a "mini-shipyard" between Shamrock and Pomeroy and that this seemed to be a good use. Pamela stated she was not aware of a ship building facility;;,only that Pomeroy had constructed a barge on their site. She explained that;Jericho;and Shamrock both bring materials.up,the River. Commissioner Sullivan asked.about the Washington Street International letter and its comparison of its site to Basin Street's on the south-andif.the same impacts noted inthe:Staff Report applied to their site asto the Pomeroy site becauseof-itsRiverDependent designation. • Commissioner Mills reported from SPARC:applications.all the discussions were based on the Basin Street proposal, and was not dependent on the Pomeroy and the restrictions applied there. Commissioner. Sullivan asked about the north side of the River with the dock area and the necessity to dredge to keep access., Pamela explained the ownershipand maintenance situation of the'McNear Channel and siltbuild-up. Commissioner Kosewic:favored keeping Pomeroy as•Commercial/River.Dependent as compared to the Basin Street property where he feared liquefaction could occur because of dredge spoils deposited in that area would make the,property unsuitable for•commercial use. Commissioner Arras asked if"due diligence" has been done to market the property to River Dependent businesses. • Pamela said she was not aware'ofanyefiort,to do this. PUBLIC COMMENT Kirstin Strain felt the,area needed;to be improved aestheticallyand wanted a more passive recreational area with mixed uses. She mentioned the dredging served only a few properties and how Stockton had revitalized its downtown with improvements to its riverfront: Commissioner Kosewic mentioned that without:the dredging by the Corps,the City couldn't afford to maintain the River and boats:wouldnotbe able'to navigate to come;to Petaluma. Pam Torliatt asked about theduediligence for River Dependent business as well. She felt:this was key to. revitalization and the.CPSP to:indrease property tax increments; and to provide'live/work transit oriented development: She said the City,:struggles to pay forinfrastructure and maintenance.. She said the idea of an assessment districtcould be investigated. She also felt it was important to support a mix of jobsto provide blue and white"collar,jobs. She stated she has talked to Shamrock and they want to stay and have better access to take heavy trucks off of Hopper Street. Council Member•Nau mentioned ,the dredging in.the Turning Basin and River channel and supports keeping the River Dependent commercial areas to maintain dredging. Commissioner Sullivan asked Pamela to explain the effects of dredging and flooding. Pamela explained.the•River's;history and the silt build-up, which could make the River unnavigable as well as cause more upstream and Iocalized.flooding. Commissioner Sullivan supported continuing dredging. 'Commissioner Kosewic asked why the-'designation•for this-site was Very Low Density as compared to the Boulevard site's designation as Rural?' Pamela said this site was presently'Suburban,(6 to 2:0 du/acre): She didn't want to'designate it as Rural since this would be a reduction�in density'designation with,a,corresponding downzoning. .Direction from Council was to maintain'densities'along the;west edge,not reduce: Councilmember Nau asked about ManniontPark(Magnolia Avenue);that has,a lot of the same features,as this site's park andthe neighborhood will be-paying'far its park. Pamela said Park on Magnolia is;designated as a passive park and the neighborhood is paying,for ittlhough'an endowment and assessment. Council Member Nau.asked if Kelly Creek would be the same and Pamela said "yes" except for-the ownership of which she wasn't aware: Commissioner Mills asked if the neighborhood designationrequired an addition to the creek corridor and if it would be where children,would play,not just part of the Open Space at Helen Pulliam Park., Pamela answered that it would be parcel-specific and would follow the'centenline of the creek. Commissioner Sullivan asked'if Helen Putnam Park could have additional vehicular access. Pamela said the;General Plan showed off-street parking with a,trailhead at Windsor'and%"D' Street'that could be expanded in the GP to allow for off-street parking. Commissioner Mills asked if language'could_be included for preservation of buildings. Pamela said this would be covered in the Historic Preservation portion and could+be thorespecific. ' PUBLIC COMMENT Chey'Moore;,52 Oxford—Member of Petaltiniansfor;Responsible:Planning,— asked,about•Chapter*2 and specifically hillside ridgelines. She was concerned)because the City's hillside ordinances:are:inadequate..at resent; She did not see an- p any -GeneralPlan, only the,Developmenf'Code: (Sheialso wanted. • the:park designation to be broader-so that her group could work with the.developers.She mentioned the • Recreation,Music.and Parks•Commission meeting-of 10/18406 where a footnote would be mcluded to state park acreage m ay be'increased'depending ion:the results from negotiations between landowners and the, developer.. Jeff Thayer— Davidon Homes — Clarified'that the"creek setback was 100' on both sides of the creek:He gave a history"of the'project.He said the,designation has beenineffect for'aiany years:and,it gives the.City enough`flexibility to create a project Petaluma°would;be proud of He felt it would be grossly unfair to change the land use designation;at this point. Dennis Elias asked about the.notification he received that...used zoning designations for a''General' Plan hearing and he felt this was confusing between the Land:Use and?Zoning designations. He also asked about. Davidon'icreek area and if it was specific to one;or-both sides of the creek or if-it was splitbetween:them,. if it was outside of the park, and ifthepáthwy would!.be usable. Pamela said the terms in the notice-refer-to General Plan terms and she would meet with Mr Elrasito help explain. She said,the;hillside regulationsiare and wills be:insthe Development Code, the General Plan'will reflect public discussion with direction to CDD, She'added that the City has hued a consultant to update the Development Code, including,the hillside ordinance that will be undertaken after adoption of the Hank Flum commented on,aestheticsand flow the Guggenheim;Museutn in Bilboa, Spain was located across from a quarryand it did nofdetracffrotn the museum's'attiactideness. Pamela asked for,feedbaek and the Commission agreed;tosupport staff's recOmmendations. III. Lands of Lind, Copeland.Street Pamela explained that'Steamer Landing Park separated the Lind property..from the River, preventing it from being River-Dependentand now should be Mixed Use.. PUBLIC COMMENT=None. Council Member Nau asked about-theletterfroni the Linds. Pamela said they support this change as well as CDD. IV. 515 East Washington Street I Pamela said this was currently Mixed.Use with individual.commercial condos and common area Map incorrectly identified the parcel.asresidential.,;Shehad sent a copyof the report to the property owners. 1 PUBLIC COMMENT—.None. V. 2595-Petaluma Boulevaid North—Lands of Sovel Pamela defined the location and the areas' topography and existing land uses. During their review of the Land Use and Mobility Alternatives Report, the Planning Commission and Council gave direction to retain limited increased densities along the Boulevard and maintainthe gateway with:very'low densities along the edge of the UGB. She said the.Sovels requested the recommended LOW Density Residential designation be moved to the west 200'. She asked for Commission direction. She said the property Owners were concerned with the topography and rural land uses and the neighborhood impacts with Low Density Residential. The Draft GP offeredlthreeaalternatives with the.Sdvelproposal,,minor increase-to Very Low Density and maintain the rural with an increase to 6 acres. Commissioner Kosewic asked'if the property was within the City Limits or if it-would need to be annexed. Pamela explained the various boundary lines on the map. Basedbon.the property line and existing land uses, the existing clustered residencescouldbe made legal with-the originalland use designation as shown on the Draft Land Use Plan:: . Commissioner Sullivan:asked'about density blending:and her impression that-it meant one parcel that is divided into two different densities. Pamela said'this-is basically correct; the terminology will be discussed at:a future.meeting. .She explained yield potentials.of parcels and various ways properties could be blended. She said that flexibility was desired to be.sensitiveto individual sites. PUBLIC COMMENT Barry Sovel,(one of the-property-owners) clarified thatdiis-.request-:wasn't arbitrary to achieve maximum development. He said because of the topography of the,property their desire was to develop the-flat areas with the least intrusion and best compatibility with the neighborhood. Commissioner Mills asked if the Sovels had met with the neighbors to discuss their proposal.He also asked if he had studied the alternative plans presented by Pamela. • General Plan..She•also said the footnote would be reflected,in`the General Plan from the R ecreation,.Music and Parks Commission meeting. Joseph Grubaugh stated he lives.downstream'of the Davidon;project. He•brought;slides;showing the area near KellyCreek with=the culverts and thetproblemtwith the private properties that abut the area and the lack of-creek maintenance.,He•also•showedkthe flooding thatoccurred this last winter: He-;asked"what:the City owed its current residents before it adds development:thatwilhimpactthem. Council,Member Nau,asked-for copies offiMr.Grubaugh's presentation to send Council Members and the SCWA. She said this problem needed 4o.be fixed. ?' Commissioner Mills asked how the storm drain system works with Kelly Creek-and-how new development • is accommodated. Pamela explained that creek maintenance:is complicated with some done by SCWA some by the(City;and some by private landowners: She`said she thought Kelly-Creek was'privately-maintained: She said'the photos,of the creek and culverts will be�shared with the City Manager; Council, Water Resources and Conservation,and SCWA. • Commissioner•Kosewic commented,thatheididn't feel the City had the right to down zone'without eminent; doniain'and'didn't want to see the site changed from Very•Lbw Density- • ChairDargieclatified'that the Petalumans For Respdhisble.Planning wanted'theRural density and the Fity was recommending;the Very Low Density. Commissioner, Sullivan asked about ways the 'City might mitigate storm run-off'to'prevent'flooding• problems. • Pamelaianswered that the City does have detention pondssandmethods to maintain pre-development run off She mentioned-Zero,NetTill, Zero Net Runoff, Diversion Structures, etc. that haves'been usediby-the City to"mitigate or control run-off. Chair Dargie,summarized that the Commission was satisfied with Very Low Density designation,with ' staff's recommendations. IX.. Lands of Asbell,Irwin7Nieuwboer;Foley.ani Mills Commissioner-Mills recused`himself. • Pamela Tuft introduced the parcels near Sunnyslope Road,dSunnyslope Avenue,-and"`D" Street that is currently designated=`Suburban(:6'to‘2:0 du/acre)'with the landowners request to bring;it to Low Density Residential. She.said:some of the properties are non-conforming'andby-bringing these parcels into the,GP as Low.Density, existing access conditions could be improved, it.could be.a suitable:minor-infillproject. Harry Nieuwboer 1309 'A `D" Street :Noted thatsthe`area,is surrounded onsthree sides°by.Low Density and the'fourth by Very,Low!Density He feltithis'would smooth'the City's boundary: He added that the residences planned wouldn't be within 100' of Kelly Creek; the proposed new shared access would reduce • traffic; and"there would be seven residences total. He and the neighborsiwill remain in the neighborhood so an appropriate project is in their best interests: Steven LaFranclit, engineer, :answered questions about the storm dram requirements for ''future development. He said':the;Kelly,Creek'infrastructurelis at max and project wouldhave,mitigations'that wouldn't'add to the Mit-off to the creek.. • Mr..Sovel said they hadn't discussed their plans with;their neighbors and,this was the first time he had heard of the alternatives. (Note:The report had been mailed,tothe'Sovel Family.)' Jim de Martini lives at 299 Gossage and said(.he heard about the proposal two weeks ago. He said he moved to Petaluma to enjoya rural setting and he objects to the 8 houses per acre that would impinge upon his view. Ed Zitter lives at 287 Gossage!and wasoconcemed about the increased density affecting his horses and didn't think 16 units per acre would be workable. Mr. Sovel answered that he wasn't proposing'this density and hadn't considered adding this many units. He said any subdivision would require City'approval and neighborhood input. He wanted to maintain an option for the futurefor higher densities. Commissioner Miller asked if the topography would affect development substantially in the area indicated. Mr. Sovel stated the City-was!going farther.than what,he would.have proposed; He likes`having space around his home and he wouldn't support going to maximum density proposed. Again, he said he wanted . to preserve their options and he doesn',t have a developer or detailed,plans. Commissioner Kosewic.asked Mr.,Sovel if he would consider keeping the North line as presented and moving the South line°to the,adjacent'property, creating a diagonal line that would make.50% of the property available with Rural and Low Density Residential in keeping-with the rural neighborhood identity. Mr. Sovel said this was a good idea and he could consider this. Commissioner Mills asked if the current Rural Residential designation:and'idiaft land use of Low Density Residential could have something-in between like Very Low density. Pamela said that based on:input fromithepublic, Planning Commission, and City Council and the'existing and future traffic volumes'on Petaluma Boulevard North, a more urban land use density was appropriate. She said that from Gossage Avenue'south into town was more compatible with a higher density directly adjacent to the Boulevard. Commissioner Mills stated that clustering has been encouraged in many areas of the City but this topography called for low density with clustering and would seem to be appropriate or could stay with the compromise Pamela suggested. Pamela said that distinct designations were supported for each parcel rather than identifying 9 acres for very low residential and would work more toward the 8 as suggested, thereby allowmg potential one-half acre lots like Mr. Sovel mentioned with a Very Low Density Residential designation. She said the low density would lend itself to a limited amount of development, encourage clustering,and could be designed to be particularly sensitive to visibility and compatibility with existing land uses. Commissioner Sullivan'asked'if the land owner would have to develop all the area at once or if it could be phased. Pamela said that according to the 'Subdivision Map Act there could be a remainder with or without development.potential. Chair Dargie suggested postponing this discussion since the compromise was just explained—all agreed. Commissioner Mills suggested that the neighbors get together and discuss overall changes for the area, not justthe Sovels. Joseph'Gnibaughsaid that with'a designation'that would allow eight houses per acre, and with 4.5 acres, potentially up to 32 homes could be built, creating a'subdivision; He wanted sensitivity to the current • neighborhood that wouldn't create an impact upon them. Commissioner Kosewic,reminded'that the citizens supported,itrfrll with the passage of the3Urban,Growth Boundary,initiative and the Planning Commission and City Were working within these parameters: John Mills as'one of the dandownerS explainedthat:the.grain would stipulate that no more than eight homes would be built on.the;futuie-parcels. He asked'for this;tobeincluded in the recommendation. ChairDargie.said;the.legality..of this.would'have.to be determined. Pamela=said she would`asktthe City.Attomeyhow-this could be worded. She thought the,lot;dimensions would limit the number of homes that could be built.,She said!the,lands of Fraley would bediaeluded,(AP 019-130-043). No discussion was held on the option for the lands of Robin&Pruett el 436 Wester Ave). Dennis Elias wanted clarification'of the four acres with a road. He said he had never seen anyone backing out onto "D"-iSneet He supported Mills limit of eight homes total. He didn't see:why`the GP had to. changedsince'a variance would be sufficient. Chair Dar: gie said this was necessary with any change of land'use designation. Commissioner Kosewic'and Council Member Nau explained that the existing homes are over50 years:and demolition would not be allowed without going.to SPARC,meeting current setbacks,etc. Council Member Nau offered to have the City's Traffic Engineer kink-at iniproving traffic flow in the'area.. Commission concurred with staff recommendation for Low'Density. Moti on:,Contindeto'.November'14,.2006 Moved by Christopher Arras, seconded by Kathy-Miller. Vote: Motion carried'7-0. • Yes: Will Dargie;"Terry Kosewic;.John'Mills;Karen Nau;Kathy'Miller,Christopher Arras;Tanya Sullivan III. LIAISON REPORTS: NONE r a. City Council: b. SPARC c..Petaluma'.Bicycle Advisory Committee d.Tree Advisory Committee Adj ouniment:-(10:57.PM) •