HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/14/2006 , City of Petaluma, CA,
•
4 City Council Chambers
, City Hall,11 English Street
Petaluma,CA 94952
•18159 Telep hone'707/778-4301 /Fax 707/778-4498
E-Mail'planning @ci.petaluma.ca.us
Web Page http://www.ci:petaluma.ca.us
Planning Commission Minutes
November 14, 2006=106:57
Present: Will Dargie, John•Mills,Karen Nau,Kathy Miller,'Christopher Arras,;Tanya Sullivan
Absent: Terry Kosewic
APPROVAL OF MINUTEST•October 24,2006106:58 PM)
Motion: Approve the minutes:of bdtober24,2006.
Moved by Kathy Miller, secondedby John Mills.
Vote:Motion carried 6=0:
Yes: WillDargie;JohnMills;Karen Nau;Kathy Miller;,Christopher Arras;Tanya Sullivan
Absent: Terry Kosewic
•
PUBLIC COMMENT::Open(06:58PM) '
Bryant Moynihan
Janice Cader Thompson
PUBLIC COMMENT: Closed(06:59'PM)
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:'None(06:59 PM)
COMMISSIONERS' REPORT:NNone (07:00PM)
CORRESPONDENCE: (07:00 PM)
GeorgeWhite •. .•
• APPEAL,STATEMENTi'Within fourteen(14calendar days,following-the date of a•decision of the
• Planning'Commission,the'decision-.may-be appealed to the City Councifby the applicant or by any other
interested party.If no;appeal-is made within that time;the decision shall be--final.:.An.appeal shall be
addressed to(the;Council'in,writing%and shalllbe'filed with the City;Clerk. Said,appeal shall be accompanied
by the appeal fee as specified h iResol'ution•2002-114-N.C.S. as adopted by the-City Council.The appeal
shall,state specifically.the,gfounds:forthe appeal and the relief sought by the appellant.(07:00.PM)
LEGAL RECOURSE'STATEMENT:Persons commenting orally,orin writing are advised to raise all
Pertinent:issues at this state of review so that possible solutions may be implemented or adopted at the
darliestopportunity. 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.
•
OLD BUSINESS: (07:00 PM)
PUBLIC HEARING: (07:00 PM)
I DRAFT GENERAL PLAN 2025 -DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(DEIR)
Planners: Scott Duiven(07:00;PM)
General Tian Documents
PUBLIC COMMENT—Not'Parcel'Specific'
• Bryant_Moynthan stated the Genet-al.Plan-:(GP.) was late-and.he wanted a product that was an asset,
defensible, and a tool.;He Said he felt that at the end, this GP•wouldn't meet these goals; He said the Land,
Use,plan was not the same as the Draft GP and this concerned hire and the Water'Resources element was
not completed when the General Plan DEIR.was done: He said the new building;nioratorium in the
floodplain and substantial changes in land use assumptions in the Draft GP might blow the}planraway"and
it lacked consistency in the jobs,;housing assurirptioiis. He added`be:thought the EIR•would'needrto'be:
redone and he wanted the GP.reevaluated. He,,said;the'flooding:issue is a regional problem and lookingiat
§pecific parcels-Was.Unfair.and properties needed to be treated consistently.
•
Katherine,Reinhart spoke:on behalf of Heritage Homes, Historic Preservation and.the.-Petaluma Museum
Board of Directors and how they appreciated`the+efforts in the:General Plan to identify historicpreservation
needs. She asked for support for SPARC's recommendation to include a separate historic preservation
element.
Janice Coder-Thompson was concernedewith the lack;of,identifiable funding.when,land use designations;
changed, particularly to`fnance transportation•related projects to support development. She wanted the GP
to;look at,funding before_makmgland use changes:
Continued piscusSion of Parcel-Specific Land Use.
I. Lands:of Sovel,,2595 PetalUina Boulevat d North
Scott Duiven, Senior Planner, explainedthe General Plankprocess for future meetings.;He introduced the
Lands of.Sovel,and refreshed the Commissioner's•minds;of,their,request to'the landowner to.talk with the,
neighborhood and return to the Commissioniwith`ideas to create;comgattbleideas'forahe property.
Dean Allandsaid he lives next door to this.property,,and noted theyproblems-in:the area He felt;that.before
the level of development allowed'tlere needs',to have:more'research and analysis: He was.concerned about
the effect on local wells wildlife, traffic, flood control,,lack of sidewalks,,unsafe, traffic control, no.
crosstown connector,,and no'bike lanes. He supported more development along the Boulevard. • . .
Jim de,Martini, 299 Gossage —said he purchased Jtis property for its rural setting and expected•it to stay '
rural. He wanted reasonable,growth'but the potential,of•18;unitston 2:acres Would create a,large'impact on
his property. He said the Sovels had not tallred`wtth the,neighbors.as plaimed,eithen
Cherlyn Zitarsatdssheimoved to Petaluma to build ia.,homeionracreage.so that=she could have her horse,
animals, and'have her children experience growing oma small farm.Shesaid henproperty is in a`22acre
minimum and.when they looked at the Assessor's roles before they purchased their property,:they=noted
that developmentr was'%s,unitper;acre,:the same:asihers. Shegsai pdieniial,developmerifof'18,
homes;as compared to her one home would.be lik d[lus e living nexfdoor;to•a,subdivisions
Carol Rathmann;331Gossage:Avenue- Said she livessadjacentto the Sovel,property, She mentioned the
GP idea•ofblendingofthe community with agricultural areas. Her home is designated as•a,wildliferelease
area by the Wildlife Rescue Center and;she feared that this level of development• ould make it unsafe to
release animals. She added that animals use more than riparian corridors for their needs.
Iry Piotrkowski, 35 Fifth,Street Said he is part of the.Sovel family and that the•family.has owned the
property for.75 years. He explained the development plan was to move the low density residential back
200'.This would put half of the property in low density and the other as rural residential. He didn':t want to
tie their hands to only having three homes on•the 6.7 acres. He:sai •the mixed densities in the area would
be consistent with.his•plan and the GP's goal,ofusing the•UGB to allow.•feathering with more density in
areas provided with city services and wouldoffer a wide array of housing'options.
Thora Collard,.2441.Petaluma Boulevard North—Didn't support the Low Density Zoning.
Megan Sovel, property owner group — Stated she supports the Sovel proposal to allow for future
development potential.
Barry Sovel, 2595^Petaluma Boulevard:North;property owner group— Said he talked with neighbors who•
attended the last Commission meeting. He said he understands the passion to maintain the character of the
neighborhood. He added that over the last fifty years he has seen many changes"and feels that he
understands the responsibility as;a steward of the property. He saidte supports dense growth in the front
with large rural lots in the back to'maintain that character.
Commissioner Mills asked Scott Duiven to explain the staff recommendation and the thought process
behind the recommendation.
Scott explained the unigneneis of the property extending from°Petaluma BoulevardNorth to the UGB. He
said originally the;GP proposal was;to eliminate the Rural designation but after taking public comment,the
desire was to maintain the nuaiwith•some higher density and following:the feathering of development. He
said the nine existing units are,non-conforming and the GP was trying to provide consistency for existing
land uses.
•
Commissioner Mills asked if this was the GP#1,recommendation with low density residential in front with
the rural designation in the rear as a compromise. Scott said"yes."
Council Member Nau said she was disappointed that the Sovels hadn't:met with the neighbors as asked in
the last meeting;and that the diagonal suggestion wasn't explored.
Commissioner Kosewic stated•that the best plans..are not recorded with the deed, only the zoning which
because of the passage of time might produce the most dense-development allowed. He said he supported
the staff recommendation.
Commission Mills, Sullivan, Miller and Chair Dargie agreed with staffs recommendation for GP proposal
7A for recommendation#1.
II. Lands of Robin—1436 Western Avenue
Commissioner Sullivan recused herself as her home is located within 500' of this-property.
Scott introduced the proposal for this 16.6 acre.parcel that is currently designated Rural and would continue
m the new GP. He said this was•in keeping with the desires of the public and the City Council. He said
this parcel is currently in the County that would allow 1.5 acre minimum with up to eleven units. He
explained the various designations in the area.
Commissioner Kosewic asked if the change from the County:standards to the City standards would result in
down-zoning.
Scott;,answered this:wouldrOt,be true because the site wouldn't,receive,City services under the County
zoning.
Commissioner,Mills asked about the'Utban'Separator oni the:site.and also asked howlarge itwould'be.
Scott explained that the concept ofaan Urban Separator,Path for the west side is difficult'because of the
number of lots involved. He said arequest for an.Urban Separator Path would be retained regardless:of the
Commission's•decision-.tonight.•Scott explained thet"the°path was not.drawn to scale to allow people to
easily see it.
Commissioner Mills asked if an Urban Separator Rath could be achieved_along the western edge„
Scott said the feasibility is there because this parcel-could be increased if property owners came,together to
l nk more properties with a potential to reach Bodega Avenue. -
Commissioner Mills said it would make sense to "carve' an urban separator"if the<parcel'wenfto:'ahigher
density. He asked about how many;acres would be takenbya'S0' separator.
Scott said he:didn;t know,but with'.the urb'àn separator on the parcel'the site:has density transfer capability
to the remainder.
Commissioner,Millsiasked about;any constraints because of trees, creeks, slopes,etc.=that,would,prevent
maximum development for very'low'density.
Scott said he•wasn't aware:of any constraints and,this was-a large parcel that-would have to address with
any.thatdid arise:
•
PUBLIC'COMMENT
Ed Giordano, 1764 Western Avenue -,Said he has discussed,the proposal with his neighbors and their
desire was to keep theaparcel Rural. He supported;feathering along the`UGB and they understood:the
inevitability of-development occurring He said.they supported,open space all along the western side with
development concentrated'onthe east side.
Mindy Toth, 1764 Western Avenue — Supported her husband's statements and mentioned the hill in the
middle of.the property with mature trees.
.Commissioner Mills asked how large her parcel was •and she responded, that it was .43 .acres..
Commissioner.Dargie asked if it was within'the City limitsand Scott answered that it was in the County.
Rebecca Celli, representing.landowners= Said the new GP designates the area as Rthal Residential and
their request was!for Very Low Density with the following poihtsin explanation: '
I) Surrounding property is,higher density and with Very Low Density Residential,.this Would be,more
consistent.
2) There,-are large estate-stylelots in the area and the community would be,seivedby the higher:density
closer to downtown Petaluma.
3) The owners would welcome discussion for Separator•Pathandthis could easily be incorporated.
4) She pointed to the 62 signature's'they had submitted supporting the proposal.
5) She,had`niet with City officials'andstaff and the proposal has=been well-received as'being appropriate
within the UGB.
Council Member.Nau:asked about the-signatures and noted that some were froth the!east side who would
not be directly impacted by this proposal.
Ms.'Celli answered that thejsiggers were all members of the community;and=would vote;on the City's plan
and voted for the UGB.
Council Member Nau said these signers were not impacted unless they were driving'to etaluma Junior
High or Bodega,Avenue.. She mentioned that all'the letters were all the same.and;there:were notes on them
stating they wanted'atlbwe =density. She Said she said she wanted the;public:to know the 62-signatures
were city-wide not just from the;neighborhood.
Ms. Celli asked how.-many people,in=the'City who.live on the:Eastsidetransfer.their^children to Petaluma
Junior.High.She said she understandsthe impact and that is why she:talkedto them
' Council Member Nau suppoitedffie staff recommendation but needed more convincing;
Ms. Toth commented4that an elderly neighbor who had said she didn'twanther property developed had
signed the letter saying she was in support of the request.
PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED
Commissioner Kosewic commented-on the size of the Giordano/Toth;parcel being .43 acres, noting it
exceeded the Rural density designation:anditherefore not really Rural and changes the consistency in the
area. He said that if houses,in:this designation were to burn down,they couldn't be rebuilt.
Scott explained that.these wereiexisting,non-conforming uses.
Commissioner Arras,stated the key fact is this property is in:the UGB and that direction from Council and
the public was to feather densities and this property is;a,good example of this. He pointed out Paula Lane
as an example.
Commissioner Mills agreed,with Arras and since this:parcehis:surrounded by'very low
density non-conforming parcels, he would include it as Very..Low Density and this would'allow'the'homes
to be rebuilt in case of a total loss.;He suggested carving out substantial.urban separator on the south and
west with 1/3 Rural.Residential and the remainder as Very Low Residential with feathering. He said with
the Urban Separator Path,tlus,would allow,a link-between Western•andBodega. He said he would support
changing designation with a:100' separator.
Commissioner Kosewic said this:16 acres was surrounded by smaller parcels and was similar to another
proposal that had two separate zoning,designations and he wanted staff to'consider,two:zones here because
of the surrounding parcels,;and to not just look at this one parcel.
CoiImrissioneLArras•wanted members•to:keep'inmind the GP2025 is a guiding document and a starting
point for land owners to bringtto the City for approval with modifications. He'.said-the developer would
have the opportunity to'have higherdensity by providing;open space.
ComrnissionerKosewic said-he thoughtthe idea was to eliminate the large number of PUD's that seem to
throw zoning plans away and the GP wasn't a starting point,it was final.
Assistant Director'White said the aim was:for consistency between the Development Code and the General
Plan and the desire was to reduce the number of PUD's.
Commissioner. Mills stated a General Plan Amendment was very difficult to obtain while a PUD was
easier. He felt thar,by eliminating the PUD by going to.Very Low Residential; this would protect the land
and create mini-park. -
ChairDargie asked,for clarification di zoning'.and,the,General Plan.
Assistant„Director'White..explained That the General Plan deals with Land Use,, not Zoning: 'Zoning
implernents:the::GP4hat:sets density only.
Comriiissioner.Millssrid he:didn't want.to.create an island of Rural Residential.
Commissioner:,Arrasxsaid.he didn't see the''island'aspeet'sinceondthe westus outsideithe-UGB and:to the
south the designationwould'be,thesame:
Chair Dargie said he would keep it as•it+is since-when development of a' is proposed, it'can cone;
back..Hesuggested designating some urban separator and:spht„with two land use designations:. . . •
Council Member Nau asked if this could be done.
Scott said avoiding blended'designations is desirable Because of the difficulty of interpreting[wlien a
proposal`for'development isbrought forward in the'future: He`said this could be done withipolicy direction
and zoning based on`constraints of.the parcel; '
•
Commissioner Mills asked if the Planning,Commission could=recommend'Very„Low Density-with.lots of
30,000 square feet with one-half as,RiirafReSidernial.
Assistant,Director.White:said it was wise to avoid putting limitations on individual parcels:
Commissioner, Mills explained he Was concerned with the,County's requirements the property'could
become,I l lots•without;public access. He,felt t,that giving;something,the City could obtain an',important
amenity,of an'urban Separ'ater:for:the publicao use.,
Scott;clarified that-the-request was to move to an,urbanseparator:rather:thana:path:•
Commissioner:Mills said yes.He wanted a substantial urbantseparator`of at least,100° to act'as a buffer
between neighbors as.well.
Chair Dargie said!thisshouldbe done,for•all the properties'on the west side„including Paula:Lane:
•
Scott,explained•thatithe:minimum for an Urban Separator'of 3001 could be changed to,say "as•depicted on.
map”. He said because of the','smaller parcels, the whole 3007'couldn't be designated since it would':be a
takinglof land: -
ChairlDargie asked the Commission if they would like this to come back for further discussion'andf:to
consider all'She parcels at one'r:time.
,Cominissioner;Mills:asked=staff to,contact:owners of tlie'non conforming properties to:include intheVery
Low;Density designation and this•would'almost bring them into conformance.
It was.agreed''to bring this topic back-for further discussion..
III. Old'Silk Mill,;Lands;of;Petaluma Preservation Group,LLC
Commissioner Mills recused himself.
Senior,Planner Scottipuiven introduced the item;and She ideas.for the•property` originallysas Mixed Use.
then full residential use with a High Density Residential designation.
Commissioner Arras asked for clarification of how many:.residential umts would have been allowed with
Mixed•Use as compared to thehigher residential designation:
•
•
•
Scott answered thatMixed Use'would have allowed 30 units per acre but this wasn'ttthe issue with this
project, it'was because the mixed used requirement:,couldn't be met so High Density Residential was
accepted.
Commissioner Kosewic asked if the parking requirement.changeswith this designation.
Scott said he couldn't answer for the General Plan process, only the Development Code would explain.
Commissioner Sullivan asked for examples of conflicts the Mixed,Use designation would present,
Scott explained the current General Plan allows.,exceptions,to:Mixed Use and the new General Plan does
not. He said with the wide community support for adaptive re=use of the building the new GP didn't want
to object.
Robert Mitchell,Manager and General Partner of Lands of Petaluma-Preservation Group,.LLC—Explained
that originally they thought the(ground,floor could support businessbut after talking to the City and looking
at the building„they agreed that residential would be best. He said this would not.change the number of
residences they had planned to'build which is 38 and under the density designations for the parcel and their
parking meets all requirements. He said their hopes are to keep the.building':as natural as possible and
significant and this project isa;"labor of love."
Council Member Nau said she was excited about the project with the high density designation — she
supported the project:
Commissioners Kosewic,Arras,.Sullivan and Miller all supported the,project.
Chair Dargie explained to the Commission and the public what parcels could be discussed in the meeting's
timeframe. Commissioners Millssand Sullivan recused themselves from discussion; Commissioner Mills
left.
IV. Lands of DSL,N.McDowell at Rainier Avenue,Deer Creek Plaza
•
Senior Planner Scott introduced the parcel and,reiterated,that the GP Land Use, not project specific
development was to be discussed. He said in the existing General Plam the area was designated Special
Industrial/Office Park. He saidthe'GP Alternatives Report considers Mixed Use,Regional Commercial and
High Density Residential. He•talked about the background and that projects in the formal review process
would be allowed to continue with current guidelines.
Chair Dargie asked how long.ago.,the consideration of this area as Mixed Use had occurred.
Scott said he didn't know but thought that since 2003/2004 with the Alternative.Land Use Report.
Commissioner Kosewic asked about Mixed Use and if it would require a Mixed Use or Community
• Commercial designation.
Scott explathedthat under Community Commercial residential units wouldn't be allowed but under Mixed
Use they would. -
PUBLIC COMMENT
Miriah Kellison lives in the area and stated the neighborhood wasn't contacted about how they feel about a
"Strip Mall'.'being built in their backyards.
Janice'Cader-Thompson lives in the area mentioned.a meeting she had at her house where the neighbors
. supported multi-use residential,with neighborhood commercial, not a "Strip Mall." She said the planned
development has been delineated and she has material to show this. She said Community Commercial '
•
needs to,be,defined. Shmsaid the commission can't separate:land•use in the General Plan andtheproposed
project and to not move forward'with the land,useichange. She said there has been no cooperation with the
neighborhood by the developer:for their input: 'She said there would be surface water problems with the
existing Deer Creek; traffic impacts; EIR needs to be done 'first; and the first biological<report was
substantially different than the new report and shouldbe compared and reviewed.
Kevin Bodwell'lives in the area' and;supports what Janice Cader-Thompson stated. He wants the EIR
completed before any changes regardless of what is developed:
Mary Glardon for_Diane Reilly=Torres who was unable to-attend. Wanted to remind the Commission that
Penngrove`had a'successful lawsuit against the County regarding a violation,of CEQA because the land Use
was changed during a`Public Comment period.
Mary Glardon said in regards to the DSL project, on behalf,of her neighbors they requested the Planning
Conunission=to leave-the designation as Special IndustriaVOfficerPark. She said when,they purchased their
homes;they did so with thisunderstanding: She didn't think the.Draft GP was appropriatetoschange zoning
in;this'area. She mentioned concerns:about:intense:commerciaLand its affection ambulance, pedestrian,
bicycles and people usmg'wheelchairs,and walkers: She said flooding,'run-off, large:trucks, wildlife
habitat, surface traffic(transferring to local streets,'air,quality,.-and causing"a decrease in their-property
values. She said the retail leakage=problem:has been'solved with Kohls„Regency, etc: She supported
leaving the zoning.as Special IndustriallOffice Park:
Ann Kemmer lives in neighborhood and was concerned-with,the traffic impact.oft 6;000 cars but without
the EIR she didn't:know.how it would affect traffrc+.on surface streets as people try to avoid the increase
volume of traffic: She also mentioned-that the nearest:freeway access would be at the already gridlocked
Washington Street/McDowell intersection. -
Bryant Moynihan said this was'one of the few-sites:identifredfor retail while he was on the City Council.
He said commercial should be encouraged to produce tax revenue for City services and also meet the
economic,requirement of the new GP and to-meet-die need for theadditional'3 million Square-feet of retail
-identified and anything but commercial wouldn't be>consistent. He said he recognizes the neighbors
opposition,to Rainier'but 70% of the'citizens.votedto build the crosstown connector„and these concerns
would be addressed whenthe'project is considered.
Steve Aiago„ representative ofDSL Service.Company, asked the Commission to support Community
Commercial: He"said the EIR is in the process of preparation and the issue.,.of conformity needs to be
resolved.to prevent further delay and a GP'update 'He said nothing has been decided, the project hasn't
been before SPARC, the Planning Commission, or the City Council. He said they have had one
neighborhood meeting and:with the input)tonight, more will ber arranged. He said based;on'the Council's
input the Mixed;Use designation was changed and designating it as commercial would make it easier.for
staff to process;their_developmentapplication.
Janice Cader Thompson,mentioned the property is nearthe,hospital ancbthere is a dire need-for'=more
medical office space;and this site would be perfect because of being in the vicinity of the hospital and this
supportedthe'Mixed?Use designation.
Commissioner Kosewic asked'if.these parcels :had always been Special Industrial/Office -Park'as he
remembered it as commercial to be linked to the funding of the Rainier connector:
Scott said it had:been this designation since the 1987 General Plan,he could check tmsee if it had ever;had
a.commercial designation.
Commissioner Kosewic clarified that if the designation is Commercial,-residential isn''t'allowed;but Mixed-
Use hasto incorporate residential. Scott.said-yes.-
Commissioner Arras asked why ythe two parcels are designated the same and if there was any distinguishing
attributes between them.
Scott said by looking;at the Land Use and Mobility Alternatives:report the site:had Office Park designated
as contiguous with.Lynch Creek and a mixture of High Density Residential along.the boulevard with
Regional Commercial along Rainier he said in essence, this would be Mixed.Use. He explained,that
Mixed Use was applied to both to•provide-flexibility,rather thin dictating where residential.would go.
Commissioner Arras•asked about Deer Creek and if more information was available to help them with their
decision.
Scott said it was awephemeral,creek;and'designated on the GIS;as'a creek.bythe.USGS. He said policies
that talk about creeks and biological values would be dealt with at.the.project level.
Council Member Nau.asked.about if the Special Industrial/Office Park designation had been eliminated:on
these parcels. She also asked if Mixed Use and Community Commercial could have medical office usage.
Scott answered that there should be:a:single designation-for-these,parcels..He said the Special•Industrial had
been eliminated:and.the rcloseststo the 1987''GP was the designation of Office Park. He said that medical
office usage could be considered'as a,conditionaLuse and gave the example of the medical offices at the
Parkway Plaza commercial.development.
Council Member Nau said that Mixed Use was part of the Smarth Growth ideals'and she supported Mixed
Use She added that she supports the Rainier connector to relieve traffic'and allow better access to the
hospital and the Junior'College. She said'she wanted to•see the project designed to'accommodate on and
off-ramps and bicycle/pedestrian lanes and paths. She did not support a big box Lowes because she could
see the potential for the competition tocreate an empty big-box. •She'wanted the neighbors and DSL to talk
to come up with a consensus before ethe Planning Commission decides on the project.
Commissioner Kosewic:stated he was under the impression it was Commercial and past proposed projects
didn't include offices only He supports the Rainier, connector-as it was included in the earlier GP to
provide better access, especially to;the hospital'. He'said an Office Park only designation wouldn't-support
the funding of the connector and,he•didn't thinksthe;traffic concerns were warranted. He said his support
would be for Commercial or:Mixed-Use with the'preference:fora shopping.center with living space above.
He,stated he supported coniinercial.
Commissioner Arras`asked what kind of flexibility would Mixed-Use provide for these parcels.
Scott explained it could be like the Regency plan with large-scale retail and'housing,combined.
Colinmissioner Arras said he was ;leaning toward Mixed the, but not strongly. He said the
,Regency/Kenilworth site illustrates,that,big box and residential can mix.
Commissioner Miller asked what the, difference, in size was between, the DSL site and the
Regency/Ke'nilwoith site and if there was aresidential percentage required for Mixed Use. •
Scott said he did.not know'the exact acieages, but they appeared similar with the.Regency/Kenilworth
perhaps larger. He answered,that there wasn't a percentage:of residential required for Mixed Use:
Commissioner Miller'said she,leans to,Community Commercial since she didn't see this site as appropriate
for residences. .
Chair Dargie:asked if Mixed Use would preclude medical!office usage and Scott said no He said he
supported Mixed Use. He said the Commission.therefore had.3 for Mixed Use and 2 for Community
Commercial and'this recommendation would be forwarded to the Council.
•
V. Lands of Delco Buildersand Developers-470,&490 Corona.Road
Senior Planner,ScottDuiven introduced these parcels.as anotherexample of an area thathas:increased
rural residential in 1987 General Planto a.higher density:in.the new GP. Thedensity.would:increase�in
theiinterior of the-parcelsto,a.dow,density?residentiahthat would'be:consistent.with thiee adjoining-sides
and along Corona Road, the proposed designation was for Very Low Density, similar to,Westem Avenue
with its mixture of parcel sizes: He said this was done to allow forefficient use of theilands within the
UGB.:He explainedthe development potentiafor the site.
•
Commissioner:Sullivan commented on the line and how it was determined to be placed'as it was:
Scott said'•this was done using GIS.allowing an accurate;Iine and extension of nearby:parcels;;and their
density.
PUBLIC'COMMENT •
Carol Bokale, lives in neighborhood, said she didn't agree withYthis designat on as being consistent.with
Low Density and Very Low Density with36thouses.planned:. She.commented;on children ,walking to
school,children playing,and the limited access to reach,Corona,Road as well as the flooding:potential. She
wanted therdesignationto be Rural.
Vin Sriith; representing Delco,Builders,,explained.that from current.Corona ElyPlan and new,GP;the
characteristicsLweretaken from Corona Road''.s•rural,characterwithoutsuburban treatment Hefaskedthat
with the,'Land Use,request.to look at the',parcels;separately: He mentioned that the area,has:merged parcels
and,otherowners have:talked:about subdividing-their properties as well Hetmentioned their∎development
densities andthatit:would',be consistent with‘the existingarea:•
Steve Girand; 1613.Andover Way;said he"likes living.on a&dead-end street. He'.is concemed!aboutMonica
as the,primary entrance/exit instead ofusing Corona Road;He also mentioned drainage issues,m the area.;
Laura,.Miller, 1677 Andover'Way; said she wasiconcerned about;flooding'because of'theareas problem
with seepage that has caused flooring issues in her home and respiratory problems because of;the
- dampness: :She said when she purchased her home she was told_it'would iemam,rural. She didn't
understand how 50,homes wouldbe consistent and'she wanted the look to remain"the:same,
Christie.Flum, Stonehenge Way;referred to the letter;from the neighbors and asked that it be,submitted..into
the record. She talked about the developer?s water and sewei;;needs; consideration for the.neighbors;
. reductionof:density;'.;seasonal.wetlands;;traffic level of service; access to the site irnprovenient,of.Corona
'to Ely,Monica Lane was too narrow.She supported a Rural designation rather than•staff,recoininendation.
Hank Plum, Stonehenge Way, said;too many._homes were;bemg'squeezed onto;the,site He said thelareais
part of the plain; water tableis very:high;bio-retention'wouldincrease the,hydrostatic;pressufe orCan
already.high water:table. HelsaidCthat m$he::futurer,Corona Road would become:an arteral'and would need
to be,widened and.development needs to planfortliis:; •
Steve Matthias, 1640'Andover Way; said he wastconcerned about traffic and,pedestrian safety with the
addition,of the planned 50 homes Hew as also concerned.with,dbedisofrom Monica Lane. He mentioned
seepage and health concerns and supported keeping the designation as it is.
Michael Quinn, Andover'Way, emphasized the overw helming`neighborhood;rejectionof the'development.
He said traffic was thbmain issue,but also'the seepage problem—,he favored'the,Rural designation:
Rich Walsh, Andover Way, said he supjiorted his neighbors and+mentioned-the wateintable, traffic,:and
health,issues.
PUBLIC!COMMENT CLOSED
Chair Dargie asked why the change from Rural in the current plan to Very Low:Density'in the new GP.
Scott explained that this was recommended by looking at remaining;land°within:the UGB and to use this
land as efficiently-as possible.
Commissioner Sullivan.asked about the inundation maps and if they reflected the January storm events and
the effect further from the River.
Scott said he recalled problems extending along the Railroad tracks but wasn't slue.of localized issues.
Commissioner Sullivan said ,the inundation map was specific to existing waterways as opposed to
identifying low:spots. She asked,Scott to outline the process that specific parcels of land follow from being
designated with+zoning and.becoming'developed. She wanted to know what a neighborhood could expect
from the City to create'appropriate development.
Scott answered that Land Use'is based on net potential and the maximum,is given to allow the Planning
Commission to make their decisionafterweighing all parcel constraints such as water, access, traffic, etc.
to determine what will be the final density.
Council Member Nau asked about the staff recommendation of Low Density without splitting the property
with some Rural designation.
•
Scott answered there was a split with Low Density and Very Low Density Residential
Council Member Nau said she understood surface water:problems`were a,major issue and with others on
Nora Lane thinking;of subdividing from Very Low Densityshe was considering the impacts.
Chair Dargie asked if the recommendation of having the,northern area.as Very Low, would bring all the
homes into conformance.
Scott said it would create conformance for those homes.
Council Member Nau asked if the designation remains Rural, what affect would this have on the Nora Lane
development potential.
Scott answered only-if the change was to Rural as well, instead of Very Low at two houses per acre.
Council Member Nau saidshe was tom between the neighbors desire for Rural and the Very Low Density
in the northern part of the parcel.
Commissioner Kosewic explained that one house per 'A acre is Rural. He suggested asking the neighbors if
they meant Rural for zoning or as a feel. He said this would get into existing non-conforming like on
Western Avenue because of the three one-half acre parcels. He said if Corona feels rural, the zoning
wouldn't change that.
Council Member.Nau stated.she.disagreed with the staff report and agrees with the:neighbors request for
Rural with the north as Very Low Density at Nora Lane.
Commissioner Kosewic said-that because of the existing buildings, he agrees with staffs recommendation
for Very Low Density and Low Density as proposed.
Commissioner Arras agreed with Commissioner Kosewic and staffs recommendation as being reasonable
and consistent with existing. He stated he did not agree with the developer's proposal to increase density
above staffs recommendation.
Commissioner Sullivan.said the argument to follow the;existing;lot.lines Was icbmpelling:but withahe:site
specifics!of the area,she didn't favor increasing density beyond staffs recommendation.
Commissioner Miller:also supported,staffs recommendation but understands the,neighbors concerns and
these Will'be addressed,vehen the"project id considered.
Chair Dargieisai&he also agreed with staff s,recommendation.
Motion: continue;to:November 28,2006
Moyed'by;Christopher:Arras, seconded by Kathy Miller. • , '
Vote: Motion carried6;0.
Yes:. Will..Dargie;John Mills,KarenNau;pKathy:Miller, Christopher Arras,Tanya'Sullivan,
' Absent: Terry Kosewic
Scott Duiven
Chairman Dargie
Scott Duiven
Chairman Dargie
COMMITTEE BUSINESS.: (10:45 PM)
II. DISCUSSION: Holiday Schedule,(10:45_PM)
George White
III.LIAISON REPORTS: (10:46 PM)
a. City;Coancil-Karen Nau(10:46 PM) •
b. SPARC-JohnMills-none(10:47PM)
c.'Petaluma.Bicycle Advisory Committee-Christopher Arras(10:47 PM)
d.Tree Advisory Committee-Tanya Suilivan(10:48,PM)
Adjourniiient:(10:48 PM)
•