Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/13/1993September 13, 1993 Vol. 28, Page 33 I JOINT 1VIEETING 2 CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMIVIISSION and 3 SITE PLAN ARCIIITECTURAL REVIEW COlVIlVIITTE~ /~r a COMMUNITY CENTER, LUCCHESI PARK l s MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 6 7:00 p.m. -CALL TO ORDER 7 Mayor Hilligoss called the City Council to order. s Chairman Clark Thompson called the Planning Commission to order. 9 Chairman Richard Burger called the SPARC to order. to ROLL CALL 11 COUNCIL MEMBERS: 12 PRESENT: Nelson, Sobel, Hamilton, Barlas, Shea, Vice Mayor Read, 13 Mayor Hilligoss la ABSENT: None Is 16 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: 17 PRESENT: Clark Thompson, Ross Parkerson, Linda Rahman, Steve 18 vonRaesfeld 19 ABSENT: Don Bennett, Pamela Torliatt 20 21 SPARC 22 PRESENT: Richard Burger, Kate Bolton, Terry Kosewic 23 ABSENT: Claudia Cleaver 2a PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2s PARTICIPANTS' COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS 26 On the Planning Commission 27 It was felt that the recommendations the Council receives from the Commission are 2s valuable. 29 The City Councilmembers said they were comfortable with the action minutes generated 3o from Planning Commission meetings. 31 Where the General Plan covers a development issue, this should be followed. Where 32 there are Development Agreements which outline the development criteria, these also 33 should be utilized as a guide. 3a Where there are Development Agreements, or the like, the Planning Commissioners who 3s were not yet appointed at the time those agreements were approved should be apprised of 36 them. 37 With the density range already approved in the Development Agreements, why is this 3s even mentioned when there is a project to approve. 39 Several Councilmembers said they watched the Planning Commission meetings on ao television, and, in addition, they made an effort to make contacts to determine the reasons al for specific actions of the Commissioners. Page 34, Vol. 28 September 13, 1993 i On the Planning Commission contd. 2 It was also suggested that it would be very helpful if the reports to the Council. covering 3 Planning Commission actions included references that indicated the Commission's major a discussion specifics and their main concerns. The Council also asked to be informed s about which of the proposed conditions were amended. by the. Commission. 6 On some development items, it might be helpful to have the Chairperson come to the City ~ Council meeting o explain differences of philosophy that have surfaced as well as s explaining where there are questions that still remain. 9 There seems to be a different philosophy between the Planning Commission, SPARC, io and the Council. i i On Appeals ~2 Out of 600 action items annually, it was noted that only about twelve appeals are received 13 in a given year by the City. is At this. point there is no charge for appeals. It was suggested that the appellant should at is least pay for the cost of the appeal hearing; i.e. mail .noticing. ~6 Pattern of Actions on Development i~ Upon request, Planning Director Pamela Tuft gave a very brief review of a likely process is facing a development (typical production home subdivision) as it goes through 'the City's i9 Planmng process: Zo 1. The .Planning Staff offers to meet with the developer and provide general Zi comments about the design, :relating the past directions given to staff by the City 22 Council, what specifics of the development design probably will :not receive 23 approval, and make suggestions that the developer can take back to improve and Za fine tune their development design. Upon completion of this the developer will Zs file either a preliminary or formal application for the development. a6 la. There are times a development design is referred to the 2~ SPARC for preliminary review. It has been found that this .step as results in cost savings for the developer through .input early in the 29 design process. 30 2. The application is distributed to outside agencies as well as to other City 31 departments. Thee departments and/or .agencies take the opportunity to address the 32 issues relating to their individual interests. 33 3. A Public Hearing is scheduled for the Planning Commission.. After the 34 Planning Commission has resolved all he development specifies they have 3s jurisdiction over, .the matter is forwarded to the City Council along with the 36 Planning Commission recommendations and findings. 37 4. The City Council considers the Planning Commission recommendations 3a and makes the final decision on the development. September 13, 1993 Vol. 28, Page 35 i On the Pattern of Actions on Development contd. . 2 5. The SPARC reviews the development design. 3 6. Upon positive completion of all the above steps, final maps are processed a and building permits are issued. s There are some slight variations to the above outline as there are some planning actions 6 over which the Planning Commission has final jurisdiction. In those cases, the issue ~ would come to the City Council only if the Planning Commission's decision were s appealed. 9 General Plan and Zoning io What densities should be acceptable in the Urban Limit Line? ii We should plan ahead. Although the General Plan covers this City's planning principles iz through the year 2005, there should be some tentative future planning about either the 13 potential or the continued restriction to the extension of the Urban Limit Line beyond that is date, and we should include the related planning that would be involved in such an is action. i6 We should look at the effect of traffic on air quality. i~ Perhaps the City should consider a transit oriented development policy, which was is referred to as "access by proximity". 19 We should go quadrant by quadrant on how we want the City to be developed. Zo Park and ride locations should be planned and/or modified with safety and ease of access Zi in mind for both morning and evening use. 2z Some residents have said that the housing density is too tight. There are no back yards 23 anymore. It was noted that a lot of this type of design is driven by the home buyers, z,a whose tastes change from year to year. Zs If it is felt the houses are too large, then one has to have the backbone. to do something 26 like approve smaller houses. 2~ Although the City has reached the point where 26% of the new homes being constructed zs are affordable to low and moderate income families, the concept of "affordability" 29 becomes skewed sometimes. There are quite a number of houses where 2 and 3 families 3o are residing. Development of duplexes and triplexes may be the answer to that. 31 The street maze in the Corona-Ely area is difficult for visitors to deal with. It is hard to 32 find your way out. 33 We build fences around subdivisions. This is contrary to pedestrian access. This does 34 not discourage people from using their vehicles. Sound walls give somewhat the same 3s effect. 36 The reason for sound walls is we needed arterials. Sound walls were constructed to 37 separate housing and arterials visually as well as to attenuate some sound at ground level. 3s We talk density, but we do not bring into the discussion the fiscal liability of reducing 39 that density. Who will pay for infrastructure upkeep there? ao The Corona-Ely area was designed to address some of the situations identified in other a~ parts of the community as being inadequate. a2 If we had not had the Corona-Ely area, the City would have no building. This is a well a3 planned area. ro Page 36, Vol. 28 i September 13, 1993 SPARC ~. ~, 2 What we get from SPARC is valuable. s Members of SPARC expressed questions about their role in the triumvirate. They asked a for feedback on all that they do. s The developers reach SPARC at almost the last step; and they appear to feel that it is just 6 one more hoop to jump. ~ The preliminary review at SPARC is helpful. s Right or wrong, there does not seem to be enough feed back between the. SPARC. and the 9 Planning Commission. Perhaps our liaison should be a more active facilitator. io Regarding the Planning. Commission asking SPARC to resolve an issue, what is the i i expectation of SPARC? What kind of screen do you want SPARC to be? iz We should institute more planning reviews. i3 We should be more involved. is General SStatements is Realizing there are a lot of similar requirements on development, some creativity in i6 developments. is desirable. i~ Among the. SPARC, Planning Commission and City Council, this is a collaborative is process. And, it is important to have continuity among the three groups. i9 We need more communication among the committees. 20 There was a feeling of satisfaction. and comfort with the Planning Commission and Zi SPARC review of the issues. 22 We three groups are the eyes and ears of the community. That's. why it is vital for all of is us to listen to the community. 2a There are some additional things that staff could handle. Zs The Liaison set up is a very good part of the process. Petaluma appears to be somewhat z6 unique in this system. z~ There are tough issues out there. This process is working well, and we are treating as people fairly. z9 We rely heavily on staff; they are the professionals. so In making recommendations and decisions, the staff must follow the "black and white" si regulations under which Planning must operate. It is the Council that is the political 32 body, the ombudsman, the policy maker. September 13, 1993 i Maybe we all should ask questions more often. Vol. 28, Page 37 2 This type of meeting sends a message to the community that our groups are doing their s job and are working together. a Next Meeting s It was agreed the next meeting should be on an alternate Monday in March, after the 6 Council has its goal setting session in February. Each legislative body was asked to have ~ one or two topics it would like to discuss at that time. Planning Director Tuft also asked s the group to indicate what they find frustrating so those issues can be addressed. 9 AD ,®U~tN 9:05 .m. ~, io M. Patricia Hilligoss, Mayor i i ATTEST: i2 Patricia E. Bernard, City Clerk