Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/27/2007 • • �, City of Petaluma, CA `7 City Council Chambers �t yt City Hall,11`English Street 43'4,..;4f:' Petaluma,CA 94952 pis 18�$ Telephone,707/778-4301./Fax 707/778-4498 E-Mail ,planning @ci:petaluma.ca.us • Web Page http://wwiv.ci.petaluma.ca.us • Planning Commission Minutes • February,27, 20074- 07:00. Present Terry Kosewic,John Mills, Kathy Miller, Christopher Arras,Tanya Sullivan,Teresa Barrett Absent: Will Dargie 'r APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 13,2007 (07:02 PM) Motion: approve minute •front th •February 13,2007 meeting. Moved by Kathy Miller, seconded by Christopher Arras. Vote: Motion carried 5-0. Yes: John Mills;Kathy Miller;Christopher A iras;Tanya Sullivan;Teresa Barrett Absent: Will Dargie;Terry Kosewic PUBLIC COMMENT:OPEN(07:02 PM) PUBLIC COMMENT: CLOSED(07:02 PM) DIRECTOR'S REPORT:None(07:03 PM) COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: (07:03 PM) • Commissioner Barrett Commissioner Mills CORRESPONDENCE: George•White(07:05 PM) APPEAL STATEMENT: Within fourteen(14)calendar days following the date of a decision of the Planning Commission,the decision-maybe appealed to the City Council4bythe applicant or by any oth-er interested party. If no appeal is made within that time the decision shall be fmal. 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. (07:05 PM) 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 or adopted at the earliest opportunity:If you challenge the action taken by the City of-Petaluma in court; you:maybe 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. (07:05 PM) OLD BUSINESS: (07:05 PM) I. DRAFT GENERAL PLAN 2025 -DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(DEW) Planners: Pamela Tuft and Scott Duiven Continued Public Hearing Pamela Tuft, Director of General Plan Administration, gave a brief,update;on the Johnson, Avila, DSL, Cedar Grove (Holmberg) and Arroyo Park properties._She.also stated that-any, text containing "Density Blending" would'be-removed from the General Plan(GP) document, She introduced the'Lands of Bouch and Bennett(request for amendment from Rural to'Low Density Residential). I. Lands of Bennett and Bouch,Jessie Lane' Ira Bennett — Clarified he was not'asking for a density, change for the entire'parcels. He explained•the parcel boundary line and that land use was designated',as;Rural originally to allow feathering of density;and to protect.the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). He said the parcel is not adjacent to the UGB and there would be protection for the sensitive site formations; he added that these parcels would be similar to:other• parcels in the immediate area as far as topography is•,concerned"and- they"are proposing them.to be designated Low Density Residential. He said,he was looking forequitability because all of his planning had assumed a certain density base with density blending as being implicit as far as development was • concerned, even though he recognized the:inherent problems with blending. He:requested'(the boundary line be.moved to conform to the land and reflect the principles that govern whether, is Rural.or suitable for more intense development. He said he was striving for consistency and he did not want to increase the density beyond what the overall parcels'in the area were designated. • Commissioner.Arras—Asked if he had calculated the acreage for two land use designations;low largethe parcelslwere;how many dwellings on the two•parcels;'and access. Ira Bennett answered he had not calculated the parcel for two land use designations;his parbelis 3.99 acres and the Bouch parcel.is 3+ acres; his property;had no;dwellingsiand the Bouch property had a main house and guest house; he owns an,easement to the.Boulevard and the Bouch property is accessed through Jesse Lane.He said if the parcels are co-developed,the access would change to the new.streets. Commissioner Sullivan asked if Very!Low Density was considered. ha Bennett replied that.this would not work unless blending'was used and he would not want the density to exceed the maximum. • Commissioner Sullivan said she saw the advantage to allow feathering toward the back where the rural properties were located. Ira Bennett said the topography clearly dictates where development and setbacks were necessary. Commissioner Barrett clarified that the Pouch.property, with the existing two units, could become non- conforming because of the Rural Residential density.allowance. She,said she did not:want to create a non- conforming parcel."Ira Bennett said this could happen. Commissioner Mills said he wanted a definite-answer'regarding the conformance issue., He-said;if it was TI less than Rural Residential, the figures for the remaining parcel would be_conforming. • Ira Bennett said the parcel size could remain at 3 acres arid would be open to negotiation as far as development. Commissioner Mills said he was looking at the line and with the condition that the rem aining'property:has topbe.a certain size,to remain conforming. Commissioner Arras asked if,wrth density,blending, how many residences would be possible. Ira Bennett replied that the number has continued to decrease but he thought it would be approximately 11 — 13 over both properties in the current'version but he wasn't sure if this figure includedthe,existing homes.He said'he would e-mail the current site plan to the Commission. • • • • . Pamela Tuft showed the current draft land use plan to the Commissionfor the entire aiea. She identified the two homes on the Bouch property;stating that the Bouch parcel would need to retain two acres to remain conforming with one residence plus an accessory unit. She recommended looking at Bennett's proposed line,designate Low Density on the-parcels and.address thesite specific issues such as the line location,tree preservation, and building area within Chapter 3. Does-not support extending Low Density any closer to UGB due to topography,tree canopy and existing development densities. Commissioner Barrett asked if there was the need to address the,tree line now or at project level. Pamela Tuft replied the trees are an asset and could be included as a policy statement in the Petaluma Boulevard North sub-area. • Commissioner Mills felt it should not be more specific than designating entire parcels as Low Density rather than splitting between Rural and Very Low. Pamela Tuft said the solution to the Bouch property is maintaining it as a legal, conforming parcel; but that saving 2/3 of the three acre site would defeat the Bennett's proposal. Commissioner Mills-explained that,if the parties'combine the property they could create a parcel as Rural by leaving a minimum two acres along-the ridgeline from Bouch and Bennett's property. Pamela Tuft said • it would be.okay to have the two acre minimum Rural remain;as one lot: Commissioner Kosewic said this seemed to create an arbitrary line.. Pamela Tuft answered it was not arbitrary since the one large parcel would have a Rural designatidn,separated from the Low Density section. She said this would be based on topography and a depth of 300—400 feet. Commissioner Kosewic asked if the one line for all the parcels would be similar to what was shown. Pamela Tuft answered it would with protection of the ridgeline considered. Commissioner Arras clarified.the Vogensen property was requested to be Medium density. He asked if a Straw.Vote was taken with an. indication to leave as Low Density, but Council could change. • Commissioner Sullivan.clarified the opportunity to change the line to create•a larger parcel on the Bouch corner for a minimum parcel 'size. Pamela Tuft answered this was the 3`" Alternative shown. Ira Bennett said the issue was to maintain two acres in Rural land use and this could be created as a rural remainder as part of the subdivision process. He said it could be open space for the Home Owners Association to regulate. Commissioner Arras asked about the parcel bordering the cemetery and Sycamore Heights that is Rural and if this would create landlocked Rural parcel if-Bennett changes. Pamela Tuft answered it would. PUBLIC COMMENT: Christine Kurtz recommended keeping the area as it is. She did not feel the neighborhood was given enough information to make decisions because they had not seen plans to tell if the density changed. Clayton Engstrom— 125 Jesse Lane—said that even though he lives in-the County everything that happens in Petaluma affects him. He read from Ira Bennett's letter and stated he did not support changing the designation. • Jim Sisson, partner of Priscilla Bouch, gave a history of her goals to provide homes for themselves and their children. He said they would protect the tree lines and would keep the lower property open. He wanted more people to enjoy the property as Petaluma grows and development occurs. Nancy Arata said she saw no problem with a change to Low Density Residential and it would be in keeping with the surrounding area. Priscilla Bouch explained she had lived on the property for 31 years and has worked to protect the trees. She asked for support for Mr.Bennett's proposal. • Casey Powell—211 White Oak Circle—pointed out that wildlife could be displaced by development. Susan Kirks — Paula Lane Neighborhood — explained her concern for the displacement of wildlife from development-and,some species were in the special species;status,.such as the badgers. She wanted wildlife corridors considered and encouraged the neighbors to hire a biologist to be sure the facts are coirect. PUBLIC COMMENT—Closed Ira Bennett stated the map illustrating the-topography and elevations was accurate showing a relatively level area before it rises. Commissioner Arras asked Pamela if any other parcels in the GP area had adjustments'to land use and split based on the topography and use of the parcels. Pamela Tuft answered yes, in the Petaluma Boulevard North vicinity. Commissioner Mills asked what the new GP designation on Jesse Lane was — Pamela answered, all Low Density, Commissioner Kosewic stated he wanted it left the;same. Pamela Tuft corrected an earlier statement regarding the "arbitrary line" stating she was referring to a different parcel: She suggested a line with Low Density'beginning at the corner of-the Sycamore Lane neighborhood and meander with a delineation of the tree line on the southwest edge to remain Rural with two acres. She mentioned Sycamore Heights.'lots-range from the high 5,000 sq ft,to the•low 7,000isq ft; therefore Low Density would be in keeping with this She hadno problem supporting such a demarcation as long as the tree line and habitat were protected as Rural. Commissioner Barrett suggested the property should remain Rural from the edge closest:to Petaluma Boulevard North at'Sycamore Heights and move across following the tree and sloperlines. She,"said this. would take•more property out of Low Density but would,preserve the best aspects'of the property. She' especially wanted,to preserve the wildlife;corridor and habitat: She also mentioned that•rezoning" one property could,intensify the use in the area She mentioned that the City Attorney had warned that once the • property is zoned,the developer would have the right to develop accordingly and that developer may not be Mr.Bennett. Commissioner Arras said he didn't want staff to spend a lot of time developing a split line designation. He mentioned the Sovel property as an example for this site. He suggested a line running between Sycamore Heights and the Vogensen property that would extend the entirety of the Bennett or Bouch properties. He thought Rural,whether Low/Very Low, would accomplish.what Mr:Bennett needed to reach the 59 homes, but this would be decided at project level. He mentioned.the "Blending" proposal had somewhat mislead Mr.Bennett and that was why his parcels were being discussed again. Commissioner Sullivan said she agreed•with Commissioner Barrett's suggestions. Commissioner Mills said he agreed with other commissioner's statements. He didn't agree with the arbitrary line,he wanted it to follow the topography and protect the free line; he favored Bennett's line. Pamela Tuft explained if a line was created at the corner of Sycamore Heights and maintained a 2 acre Rural Lot at two locations, this would create two conforming lots. She said the main issue to make sure the.Bouch property maintains its legal status. Commissioner Mills suggested two, two-acre parcels with Low as the designation rather than Very/Low. Commissioner Arras suggested an upper land use split of Very Low to work with Mr:Bennett's desires and would be sumlar- with the adjacent zoning. Commissioner Mills said with the two, 2 acre parcels designated at Rural, this would create about 8 parcels because of the significant:site:constraints on the site and the Low Density designation at the bottom: Ira Bennett suggested the wording that, under no circumstances, shall a Rural parcel in this'area.be;less,than two acres: He said with future subdivision, the upper could be one rural parcel, if Ms. Bouch agreed. Commissioner.Mills said there was•a.consensus to come up with a line and he favored following the topography. Commissioner Arras said there was no precedent_rto create a land use line based:on topography in'the GP. He suggested using the adjacent boundary lines between Sycamore Heights and the Vogensen's property. Commissioner Sullivan said she wasinclined to starting at the corner:and following the topography to create a 2:acre parcel below the trees. Commissioner Miller agreed that keeping conforming Rural parcels following;the topography at the top. Commissioner Barrett agreed with Commissioners Sullivan and Miller this would be a good neighbor policy since the neighborhood has enjoyed a rural setting. Commissioner Mills said this proposal had four head nods. II. Avila Ranch—Sonoma Mountain Parkway Pamela Tuft asked the Comniission about the Avila properties and gave a history of the area as a suggested spot for infill development withdts current designation as,Urban Di'ersified with up to 10 units per acre (using:gross acreage). Commissioner Mills said the change wouldn't really matter asifar as thecdensity. Commissioner Arras supported hearing this again. Commissioner Sullivan did not support hearing again. Commissioner Miller did not want to rehear. Commissioner Barrett.wanted to rehear. Commissioner Kosewic said to leave as is. Commissioner Mills wanted to bring back. Pamela Tuft stated with 3—3,no notice would be sent, no further discussion needed. COMPILATION OF COMMENTS REPORT III. MOBILITY ELEMENT • Commissioner Sullivan wanted clarification about the GP processand the funding For the projects outlined in the Mobility section. Pamela Tuft explained the process of completing:.the GP. and how the funding would be achieved and how it would be paid for to be identified in the Implementation Plan. Commissioner Miller commented on the Rail reference, suggesting it should state"potential". Pamela Tuft explained that funding was available for rail repair or could be•teinstated.in the near future; she would differentiate between•Rail.and Light Rail to be clear. After some discussion, including the Trolley use, it was determined that language should be:added to clarify. • Commissioner Barrett wanted to improve.existing bus;transportation language to-have local transit routes coordinated with other regional transportation schedules, as well as school schedules. Commissioner Mills asked about private residential streets that may come up with.infill development. He felt this was important because of the need for street standards. He wanted to be sure that't'every street didn't have to be a certain width as it would eliminate the country lane,feeling that is important.. He was concerned about standards, curbs:and.gutters, sidewalks arid public access.• Pamela Tuft said she would talk to the City's Traffic Engineer: - Commissioner Kosewic said he didn't feel it was necessary,.giving Victoria and locations in East Petaluma as examples: Commissioner.Barrett.said she wanted to,discuss street standards since.building below this might create a liability'situation. Commissioner Sullivan,said there could be an advantage to embracing' them as an alternative to having a number,of driveways,off an arterial street, a single access could be arranged and impiove circulation. She said she didn't want to streets that prevent-children from playing safely. Pamela Tuft said-this could be brought back for discussion: Commissioner Miller preferred a permissive rather than definitive reconfiguring of roadways. She was concerned it was too definitive by listing explicit roadways She said other roads may arise or be eliminated; she preferred saying "may include". Pamela Tuft agreed with Commissioner Miller and will change language to say"may include": • • • Commissioner-Barrett mentioned that Petaluma Boulevard;South should be.mentioned in,the„list as it was designated in the CPSP and she wanted it to state"North and South”Petaluma Boulevard. She commented on 11 of 20; "f", regarding bus passes, she.wanted,wording stating to improve mobility, SRJC students should have discounted passes; "G" to include language regarding bicycles as well as alternative fuel vehicles. ConimissionerMiller stated, regarding major employers, the policy wording may have to be expanded to include:student bus passes. The Commissioners discussed the various pottions of the GP and asked questionsrthat Pamelk.and Scott answered. Commissioner Sullivan asked about the pedestrian district since it did not include school sites and if there was any'funding for improvements: .Pamela Tuft said she wasn't sure but she.would check with Public Works. Commissioner Sullivan commented on pedestrian improvement priorities such as Webster Street to Washington Street and at'Bodega to Prospect. She.said'pedestrian accidents have occurred at,these locations and a study seemed warranted to improve safety. It was agreed this was a good idea. Commissioner Barrett'mentioned the.Pedestrian Safety.Program, asking what department would:handletlus and how it would be funded. She thought the Annual Bike and Pedestrian report from.the,Police Department could be combined as these reports seemed redundant. She also wanted language to`encourage all local public transportation vehicles to have bike racks. Commissioner Sullivan wanted the administering of the pedestrian program tote more flexible to allow interns and volunteers. Commissioner Miller asked why the bus routes and times were so specific in the GP. Pamela Tuft answered the Transit Manager asked for this inclusions She said it could besreworkedrand, if there was:a. new transit plan, it could be limited within the:General Plan. Further, she noted they will include bike rack language, Commissioner Mills suggested adding wording to state: `improve public transit with:altemate forms of transportation and bike racks'. IV. PUBLIC TRANSIT Commissioner;Sullivan mentioned taxis and with thedncrease in the senior population she wanted wording to include alternative transportation needs to meet this group's need. She felt the "Airporter was environmentally friendly and if the Fairgrounds was relocated,this service could be relocated to the Transit Mall; she:suggested not using the specific Airporter term in the GP however. Pamela Tuft explained the Park `n Ride lot on Ey Washington isa federally-funded City,project and the Airport bus service could still use the area. V. WATER,AIR,RAIL TRANSPORT No Commissioner comments. VI. RECREATION,MUSIC,PARKS AND THE ARTS ELEMENT Pamela asked for Commission input regarding the,Cedar Grove.Parkway proposed neighborhood park. Commissioner Mills said he supported the recommendations!to change:to a two acre park. Commissioner Arras wanted-to;be sure that the Recreation,Music,and Parks Commission was aware of this—Pamela said she would make sure. Commissioner Sullivan'asked what other city parks were this -size. Pamela .1/ explained that this;would actually result in Two'neighborhood'parks with one being,active with playgrounds and the other apassive park. She gave the example of another two acre park as West Haven. Commissioner Miller stated she wanted to see "Active" and "Passive'' defined at the beginning of-this chapter. Pamela said this wouldbedone. - - • • Commissioner-Sullivan asked about the:Fairgrounds:Joint Use agreement Mentioned in the Park Element. She said Lucchesi Park needed improvements to the availability and location of restrooms. Commissioner Mills wanted wording in the GP to create a policy where community parks have a periodic review to address certain issues. Commissioner Sullivan.commented on the list of Arts that included specific activities and events and wanted to add the High School Band Review—Pamela will add. VII. COMMUNITY FACILITIES, SERVICES AND EDUCATION ELEMENT Commissioner Sullivan mentioned she wanted to acknowledge global climate change and its affect on facilities such as the Marina, wastewater facility, clearance under bridges. She was'also•concerned about emergency cell phone access, especially as more people begin using cell phones exclusively; she felt a policy statement was needed. Commissioner Barrett said she wanted a policy to link local and regional radio communication and this would be a community goal to'achieve regional..compatibility to access local emergency services with cell phone. Pamela Tuft said she would talk to the Fire Chief for wording. Commissioner Arras stated this need would make a low power FM station important for emergency services. Commissioner Miller mentioned all the text regarding the lack of space-at the police station and there was no explanation of funding for a new facility. Pamela Tuft said she would go back to review the adequacy of the facilities. VIII. WATER RESOURCES ELEMENT Commissioner Barrett asked about the language in the GP stating the water savings element would be completed in the fall of 2006. Pamela Tuft replied that the water conservation plan would be coming out in the next few months and conclude in 2007. Commissioner Barrett asked about the wording regarding,the water shortfall being solved through the measured use of groundwater for residential use. She pointed to other statements in the GP where groundwater would be for emergency use only. She said this was inconsistent and needed to be resolved. Pamela Tuft stated that when water demand was studied, it was not anticipated that non-emergency groundwater usage would be necessary until 2023 at the soonest, using conservative estimates. She said conflicting history and emphasis from elected officials have created aneed for further direction. She added that historically groundwater:had been used as a primary source of water and some support continues to exist for using it to augment the SCWA supply. She said adopting a policy to allow the use of a sustainable yield with a preference for emergency use only has been discussed. Commissioner Mills wanted to include composting toilets and gray water systems. Pamela Tuft she has contacted a group regarding this and will bring information back. Dean Eckerson said to incorporate Commissioner Mills' request,:language would be needed stating there must be compliance with existing public health and safety rules. Commissioner Mills said he wanted language in the GP to support the use of these systems,and to include support for the City to apply for exceptions. He also mentioned tertiary treated individual septic systems. And, he wanted to include waterless urinals in residential as well as commercial buildings. Commissioner Kosewic mentioned the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee had requested drinking fountains at commercial buildings but it required a septic line—he wanted language to support dry wells to drain the water. • • Commissioner Barrett wanted to'extend the commercial'urinal rebates to residences and to extend the use of high efficiency toilets to commercial buildings. Commissioner Sullivan asked about the safety of tertiary treated water on playing,fields. Dean Eckerson said they were studying this issue. He said studies have determined that pharmaceutical or hormone particulates were negligible and degrade rapidly and therefore were not a problem. Commissioner Sullivan said she wanted to be sure before the City goes to the:expense of bringing•the tertiary treated water to playing fields.. Dean.Eckerson said the water meets current regulatory standards. Commissioner Barrett asked if this would meet future regulations for treating tertiary treated water and if the current wording was adequate. • Commissioner Sullivan asked about potential groundwater recharge area protection and how this was achieved. Pamela Tuft answered the Groundwater Feasibility Study identified the recharge areas and the Petaluma River Corridor plan established setbacks necessary for protection. Commissioner Barrett wanted to extend the building, code requirement to include• low-flow water appurtenances to extend to commercial as well as residential — she wanted this adopted rather than just considered. She also wanted to add that if. the Army Corps, of Engineers discontinues dredging, an assessment district should be formed. Commissioner Mills Motion:.to continue to next meeting on March 13,2007 Moved by John Mills, seconded by Christopher Arras. Vote: Motion carried Yes: Terry Kosewic;John Mills;Kathy Miller;Christopher Arras;Tanya Sullivan;Teresa Barrett Absent: Will Dargie II. LIAISON REPORTS: (10:01 PM) a. City Council-Teresa Barrett(10:01 PM) b..SPARC-John.Mills(10:03 PM) c.Petaluma Bicycle.Addisory Committee-Christopher Arras(10:03 PM) • d. Tree Advisory Committee-Tanya Sullivan(10:06 PM) Adjournment: (10:07 PM) • •