Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/23/2007 • 6 pi.L City of Petaluma, CA ry `� City Council;Chambers a ._c;1\: P City Ball,11 English Street . A ,rte. Petaluma,CA 94952 _., .1 a 5 g Telephone 707/7784301 /Fax 707/778-4498 E-Mail planning @ci.petaluma.ca.us i - Web Page http://www.ci.petaluma.ca.us Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2007 - 06:59 Present: Will Dargie,John Mills,Christopher Arras,Tanya Sullivan Absent: Terry Kosewic,Kathy Miller,Teresa Barrett APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 9,2007(07:01 PM) • Motion: Approve APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 9,2007 Moved by John Mills, seconded by Christopher Arras. Vote: Motion carried 2-0. Yes: John Mills;Christopher Arras . Abstain: Will Dargie;Tanya Sullivan Absent: Terry Kosewic; Kathy Miller;Teresa Barrett Commissioner Kosewic Arrived • PUBLIC COMMENT: OPEN (07:01 PM) Mary Glardon PUBLIC COMMENT: CLOSED(07:08 PM) DIRECTOR'S REPORT: (07;08 PM) COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: (07:08 PM) CORRESPONDENCE: (07:09 PM) - • . APPEAL STATEMENT: Within fourteen(14)calendar days following the date of a decision of the Planning Commission,the decision may be 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 appeal shall be addressed to the Council in writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk. Said appeal shall be accompanied by the appeal fee'as specified by Resolution 2002- 114-N.C.S. as adopted by the:City Council.The appeal shall state specifically;the grounds for the appeal and the relief sought by the appellant. LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Persons commenting orally or in writing 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. OLD BUSINESS: (07:1 I PM) • • I. DRAFT GENERAL PLAN 2025 -DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(DEIR) Planners: Pamela Tuft and Scott Duiven(07:11 PM) Topic/Discussion Papers PUBLIC HEARING: OPEN(07:17 PM) • I. Density Discussion Pamela Tuft, Director of General Plan Administration— Introduced the Land,Use element explaining net and gross density, changes to Rural and Very Low Density to reflect change from gross to net calculation, and density blending. She explained how density would be affected and the impact on projects. Ira Bennet, property owner and co-applicant.with Cobblestone Homes explained this project with an expectation of allowing for 60 homes total. He said with the requifements;of a park and,the inability to buildnear Jesse Lane at Petaluma Boulevard North, the homes would have to be placed up the hill in the "Rural" areas. He said his property is not adjacent to the UGB so feathering did not seem appropriate and the GP goal of protecting hillsides and ridge tops did not apply'since the site had neither. He pointed to adjacent land that was similar and it was not designated as "Rural". He wanted the site to be.looked at as a whole and not-have rural in a designated area He said the sensitive sites at the'tree line'.should be protected. He asked the Commission to request staff to work with the developers to make the policies more flexible or re-examine the rural designation. Commissioner Mills asked Pamela about the similarities of this parcel to another that they,had discussed and if it could be brought back for a full hearing with proper noticing. Pamela said it could be re-noticed and brought back. Commissioner Sullivan said it would make sense because it was difficult not to talk about project-specific details. Chair Dargie clarified if they would be discussing the concept of blending along with the designation for both properties. Commissioner Mills said they could talk about density blending and possibly both could be done that evening. Commissioner Kosewic said the developer bought the property with a particular zoning and with knowledge of the site's-potential and asked why the City should try to accommodate the developers desire to build more homes. Pamela explained that "Blending" has'potential uses and can result in a better project but she wouldn't recommend allowing"Blending" from Medium to Low and becoming"Rural". She said this would ignore the directive of Council and would result in eliminating-the"Rival"designation. Steven LaFranchi — Steven LaFranchi and Associates—Fie said he understood the gross and net and adjustments on the high end from Rural.and Very Low seemed consistent. He suggested that to allow for the.difference between the county legal description'that extends to,the center'of roads, the City'adopta rural'road standard without curb, gutter and sidewalks. He said if the City mandates'feathering he,see;flexibility with blending could be used if the City is not so stringent wherr keeping in mind site consfiaidts'. He said.the,-neighbors maybe unhappy with higher densities and allowances would have to be made. Pamela agreed with LaFranchi and will provide clarification of densities in GP 2-3 and site constraints. She would have additional text to address changes and back-up policies. Commissioner Sullivan clarified that the recommendation of,density blending was not supported but clustering was and how these differ to meet objectives. • • • Pamela explained if no blending allowed, clustering-would.have to be maintained within the original boundary and would allow some very low density development to slide into rural to identify and/or protect certain site amenities. She said if this was not defined clearly in the GP it would be subject to interpretation and she wanted clarity. Commissioner Sullivan clarified that the,next version would say there would be a-line on a parcel to show the two designations and additional text would talk about percentages,with blending but would be specific enough for staff. Pamela said yes, either in the form of a line or some other method. Commissioner Kosewic asked if this would apply only to large parcels with two designations or to an owner who purchased two parcels with different designations and if they could blend or combine these through blending. Pamela answered that this would circumvent the intent and she said both overall and maximum density should not be exceeded,regardless. • Susan Kirks, Paula,Lane Action.Network- Said she,agreed with.Commissioner Kosewic regarding property owners requests in consideration,of how:far.along the GP is and what they should know about the property's development potential at time of purchase. She wanted Council's direction-for rural residential honored. She objected to the support of three commissioners for the changes to the Western Avenue(Lands of Robin)property. Bryant Moynihan - He mentioned feathering and density and how the new GP seems to have forgotten about this concept and it was important to him He said this must,be done in context with adjoining properties and he felt it appropriate for the property owner to request. He also stated the new GP did not seem to meet the state's housing requirements to meet future demand. He wanted the Commission to look at this keeping in mind density balancing. He said he represents the Vogensen propertythat"is within the City limits.ind.desired a Medium Density designation for it,as it would be consistent with neighboring properties-and.for thesCommission.to keep in mind the adjoining property that is outside the City limits. He said the Cobblestone development would provide a road coming into the Vogensen property and on the other side "access is available from-the Acorn Circle development. He wanted the • Council to keep in mind State housingrequirements as well.. • Ira Bennett stated he agreed with Susan Kirks and Commissioner Kosewic's statements about why the commission is talking about this at this late;date. Hetsaid:all along it was represented that the,properties.he represents would be treated as a whole and the Commission has heard this`proposal a half--dozen times and each time staff assured the Commission it was consistent;with the GP. He,said now staff has reversed itself and changed how the site would be treated. He said density blending wouldn't work for his site and wanted the siteLto be changed to Low Density with sensitivities to site's critical areas. He•said if the Commission doesn't want to hear this, he would withdraw this proposal.andlsubmitit as a subdivision because the site couldn't be developed without using the hillside. He requested all consideration'to be discontinued and he would request reconsideration later. Commissioner Arras cautioned about being project/site specific in this discussion as the Commission is addressing the GP to set City development policies forthe,next 20 years and not the specifics of this site He recognized that last minute changes are problematic because the.changes-indensity withgross/net and blending will impact other sites. He said he was more comfortable that everyone should be aware of the impact the GP changes would have on sites before theComnussion goes;ahead and makes changes. Commissioner Sullivan wanted more Commission input and didn't feel they could address language that they haven't seen. Commissioner Mills said he thought density blending could be used to solve problems of different designations on properties and wanted flexibility to develop to the best potential for the site. He said there,were only about 15 properties affected-by thisand`the Commission and SPARC could work to make them viable projects. He would like language to encourage density blending without being overly.specific. Commissioner Kosewic said he wanted a line drawn and go ahead since developers would have a way to make their project fit the site;:and if the developers were unhappy,they could come back. -- — - Chair Dargie-Asked clarification of the difference between blending and feathering. • Pamela explained Net vs. Gross.and the changes to Rural and Very Low Density was to correct an unintentional reduction;in density from the 1985 GP.. She said density blending was in response"to questions when a parcel or parcels were combined and a development,uses;a multitude of densities. She explained blending isnot a problem in medium or high density projects',but when it occurs in rural or very low density areas the feathering concept was used in the previous GP to reduce the number of units.per acre, as development approaches the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB): She added this was originally used along the eastern edge of the City. She said in the Wiseman Park(near the airport) area_cul-de-sacs at the UGB were used to help the feathering of the smaller lots She said the feathering concept changes,according to the terrain and:the underlying•land use designation. She said there was a need to:resolve, clarify, and fine tune the text to finish the.GP. Commissioner Arras asked about the proposed derisit policy changes and what effect overall.this'would have on the total number of housing units. Pamela answered that there no net increase;thereis;an adjustmentfrom the existing conditions. She;said Council directed to leave the existing rural lands Waal. She added that no direction has been given to reduce the density potential.andin effect the'Net"did thistand!is therefore,a correction. She explained that if the correction is;done as requested,no net increase would occur; if not,there will,be-a minor decrease. Commissioner Arras asked if this would result in a.disentitlernent. Pamela said this was not the intent and not directed from eithef the'Planning Commission or Council. Commissioner Arras thought that in going through the process with discussion of specific sites'.and looking at ranges and the numbersin the GP, potentially changing the upper end of the Rural and'Very Low Residential'at,this,point seemed backwards,and should have,been done first. He said he was concerned and felt this needed more deliberation to allow the public to fully understand the on specific sites.He wouldwaritthis brought back. Pamela said it would be brought back. She explained there was.no additional development potential and therefore did not seethe impact. • Commissioner Arras clarified thatsno additional development potential-froth the'1987 GP to,the2025 GP with the inclusion of these two proposed density changes. r • Pamela said yes it would remain at 2. Commissioner Arras further clarified that an overlap between Very;Low Residential and Low Residential would cause no concern that the low end would go up. • Pamela-said yes. A Commissioner Arras asked about the state housing requirements.. Pamela explained that the housing numbers were at a draft stage and she didn't,believe the GP would be in violation but she will Check with Community Development Director Moore to be sure. Commissioner Arras commented on density blending.and wanted more publicacommentbutte basically saw it as a good idea. He wanted.policies'to address developers who would buy six parcels'and blend.them. He wanted policies tolimitthis to two contiguousiparcels from the depth of the City center to the UGB. He cautioned':against developing policies on specific parcels to meet a specific project's goals. Pamela agreed that parcel specific'policies should>be:avoided. Chair Dargie asked Commissioner-Arras if he was not supporting staff recoinmendation on the Rural and Very Low Density and density blending. Commissioner Arras said he.neither,supported;nor opposed the,2025.GP changes. He felt the public needs to have more input but it wouldn't delay the GP. • • Commissioner Sullivan said she supported staff changes}from,Rural and Very Low Density designations. She added that they have known about this unintended effect throughout the GP review process and it didn't have an impact. On density blending,she favored staff,having some flexibility especially when unique topographical features of a specific parcel were being reviewed. She-said crafting language to allow this would be difficult but staff had resources and with communication with the Planning Commission could develop language to allow this. She said she was not ready to support staff recommendations'however until she knew what the final wording would be. Commissioner Mills agreed with Commissioner Sullivan. He said he had no problem with the lust two items as they had no impact and only needed minor changes. Regarding blending,he would like a proposal using maximum parcels and maximum percentages of blending to keep to minimum. He also wanted a blending policy. Chair Dargie said he was fine with staff's recommendations. • Pamela clarified that the majority of the Commissioners were okay with the corrections and the numbers for Very Low and Rural Residential. She said she will bring back for discussion recommendations and wording to address the blending. Bryant Moynihan— Stated he didn't oppose density blending.,;He mentioned the feathering at the Vogensen property was judged on'the basis that adjacent properties were Rural, and.one Commissioner thought the property was located next to the UGB. He said the feathering,concept would make a very-strong argument for the same GP land use designation as the adjoining parcels and parcels located across the street as medium density. He.wanted to have the Commission look at this parcel againto make sure it is correct. He also wanted Mike Moore of CDD to point out the state mandated housing requirements since he did not believe the GP met-the requirements. Pamela answered that the GP has a certified housing element through 2009 but she would meet with Mr. Moynihan. II. Petaluma Small Craft Coalition Scott Duiven, Senior Planner—Presented the Petaluma Small Craft Coalition (PSC3) and the Stakeholders Advisory for the Petaluma Build It Green Coalition letters with their specific requests and changes suggested for the Draft GP. He asked for Commission input on their ideas rather than incorporating it by staff itself. Commissioner Arras felt the letters were helpful and if clarification available they could hear that and present a brief overview for the public's information. PUBLIC COMMENT Theresa Dowd—Supported moving forward with the GP with the consideration of the small craft users in Petaluma. Jerry Price—Said he was a River advocate and in favor of River issues. He gave his sailing background and mentioned the significant benefits to having small craft opportunities available. He wanted'the GP to comply with the River Enhancement Plan. He felt a small craft facility would be a great amenity for Petaluma. Susan Starbird —.Referred to the 9/30/06 letter she helped author with suggestions for the GP to integrate the River Enhancement Plan.. She said with development pressures; it would be important to"put teeth" in the implementation. She mentioned the importance of a definition of river access and how difficult it to launch craft at present. Greg Sabourin— Stated the boat house would need property and the association could raise money to support. He pointed out that the City does'not have any appropriate waterfront properties and the Pomeroy site was viable for a park to be set aside in the GP to include a small craft center. Commissioner Kosewic mentioned the livery stable on the McNear Island but he wasn't sure how a boat house would fit into the GP. • Greg Sabourin replied'that.his group has approached the-Recreation, Music and Parks Commission to explain their proposal. He explained the livery stable was too small.His'group'has identified the need for at least.6 of an acre. He mentioned that if a park was not accepted they could work to find.commercial property'but-would prefer a joint venture. Commissioner Kosewic mentioned the riveraccess requirement.for the McNear.Hill and Dufra properties'requirement to have river access. • Greg Sabourin answered that there was no public access to the water, and this was more of a landscape feature that • lacked boat launchin"g.capabilities. Commissioner Kosewic asked where the money would come•from. • Greg Sabourin said the River Access & EnhancementTlan identified money from redevelopment was to be used to provide access but this"has'slipped through the cracks. Commissioner Kosewic said he had problems-with the.River Enhancement Plan, specifically its plan to have a path beneath the"D"Street Bridge that was not possible due to ADA requirements. Greg Sabourin said this was still being pursued andstronger language is needed because these issues have.not been fully dealt with. • Commissioner Arras said he recognized the importance of dredging and asked what type of access was necessary to bring craft to the center. • Greg Sabourin explained that the results,of a survey showed that people wanted to be able to store their boats without having to load and transport them. They also needed trailer access and wanted a facility for,educational and other uses as well. John FitzGerald explained the Redevelopment Department had a complete set of plans for an ADA, accessible walkway. He did not see a problem with the trail that meets,the River Access;plan,that would,go from downtown to Shollenberger Park He said the real issue is the,access issue and small craft needs access to the River because the steep sides make launching a boat or kayak difficult. Be said with development pressures park-space is needed with water, sewer and space for the facility. He added that developers seemed amenable to including land for this type of use. Scott clarified that the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission has weighed inland their input for dredging of the 1. McNear:Channel and,a.small,facility will be included m the redline version of the GP. He said staff saw no problem with the 12/30/06 letter but wanted`support from the Comnnssion`to include in the GP. He said help was needed with, the site-specific language that did not seem appropriate for the GP. Commissioner Kosewic was concerned about the site specific language as well as this would bring all the other . organizations to request the same language. Commissioner Mills said he.uses the Rivera-lot and agrees with the speakers but was-critical of other specific users groups wanting specific language included in the GP—he wanted to see how the other Commissioners felt. Commissioner Arras commented that staff should be writing the .language and not "tweaking"the user groups wording. He said it should fit into the goals,;policies and programs and be consistent with the rest of-the GP. He wanted the Pedestrian, Bicycle Advisory Committee to be included in receiving information.regarding pedestrian access,etc. • Commissioner Sullivan said it was appropriate to improve the definition of access as it applied to fly fisherman. She also-wanted to "put teeth" into the intent'"of'defining access as interactive and creatingdhe wateraccess. She wanted .staff to work the language to accomplish this. • Chair Dargie said he heard yes on the'language but wasn't clear aboufspecifi •park use since there is a park planned on the Pomeroy site. Commissioner Arras said he'was inclined io'say rio on the specific!proposal for a park.. Pamela clarified that it would be appropriate to identify in the text but not,tie it to a specific use She said it would be best to defer to the Parks Masier Plan that would identify specific sites and improvements. She said she will craft the language and the redline version would reflect these comments. III. Build it Green Scott asked the Commission for the input regarding changes to the Guiding Principles forxhe Green Building program. Commissioners accepted thechanges to 1, 3 and4 but had reservations about pioposed changes to 2. IV. Growth Management Pamela presented the numbers for the build-out of the GP at 6,000 residential units. She talked about the limited water supply;possibility of slowing down'residential growth; modify the allocation to not exceed 300 units per year. The Commission had questions about the yearly numbers and how it was figured; and how the state requirement for so many new residences affected this. Pamela explained the Residential Growth Management System and George White answered their concerns about the certified Housing Element meeting the state's requirements. • The Commission supported limiting,growth to 1100 or 1200 units',over a three year period. Pamela said she understood their direction and would come back with the wording. • V. Hillside Ridgeline Properties Pamela introduced this item for the Commission's consideration and will add a map exhibit to document sensitive.. hillside areas. She added that hillside regulations belong in the Development-Code that CDD is working on to implement the changes in the.new GP. Commissioner Mills stated he favors hillside ordinances in the Development Code. PUBLIC COMMENT Ben Sasway— Commerited on'his group's efforts to provide.hillside ordinance language to protect and preserve this resource. He said he was^`happy with the GP language but was concerned about the "Clustering" language. He explained that he thought this could become a developer's'panacea and wanted clustering'to be used as an option and not emphasized. Commissioner.Sullivan.said that:clustering was intended to bring development down from'the top,bumf used to the extreme it can be detrimental. She said the intent was to work around and preserve natural resources. Pamela said she would look into this. Commissioner Mills'said that clustering was to protect not exploit an area and he didn't want to see clustering on top of a hill. Commissioner Kosewic suggested planting more trees around homes on a hillside/ridgetop. Pamela said this hasn't been'successful because of the lack of the ability to enforce long-term maintenance of the trees. • • VI. Residential Uses on Arterials Pamela began the presentation regarding medium and:high density residential with.some mixed use where high,den'sity abuts arterials to allow for frontage flexibility, such as along Petaluma Boulevard North and ,South. Commissioner Mills commented that bringing commercialization along arterials has helped the transitioning'and is a good tool. Commissioner Kosewic said he would like some;protection built in to keep the mixed use atmosphere like the nursery at-East"D"and Wilson,—Pamela will check on'its'designation. • Scott requested Commission direction as far as a comprehensive definition of what Mixed Use is. Particularly he wanted Commission's decision as to whether Mixed Use must=always contain residential uses as the definition was not clear on this issue. Commissioner Kbsewic said today's term Mixed.Use is`notwhathe expected based on his experiences and felt it did need a definition. • Commissioner Mills,said he was comfortable with.the language in the draft GP: He added that he wanted to include enough flexibility to create the best possible project by combining elements but not being locked in with strict terms. Commissioner Sullivan said she was satisfied with staff recommendations. Commissioner Arras clarified that when the new zoning ordinance is developed,.Council can further clarify what mixed use was. Chair Dargie said he felt the key was:a mixture of uses and wouldn't want to see any developthent`with a single use and adding to traffic intensity.. He wanted language to protect against a developer circumventing ;the intent of the mixed use designation. Scott said the current definition could be strengthened to state not one or the'other or a token amount-of uses were acceptable. • Motion: To continue-to February 13,2007 Moved by John Mills, seconded by Tanya Sullivan. Vote: Motion carried 5-0. Yes: Will Dargie;Terry;Kosewic•;John Mills; Christopher Arras;Tanya Sullivan Absent: Kathy Miller;Teresa.Barrett PUBLIC HEARING: CLOSED II.LIAISON REPORTS: (10:06 PM) • a. City Council b.:SPARC(10:06 PM) c. Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee(10:06 PM) d. Tree Advisory Committee(10:06 PM) • Adjournment: (10:06 PM) •