Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/26/1985251 Not Official Until Approved By The Planning Commission MINUTES Petaluma Planning Commission March 26, 1985 Regular Meeting 7:30 p . m. City. Council Chambers Petaluma, California PRESENT: Commissioners Head, Hilligoss, Libarle, Read, Sobel, Tencer ABSENT: Commissioner Serpilio STAFF: Warren Salmons, .Planning Director C) Mike Moore,. Principal Planner c Pamela Tuft,. Principal Planner Mary Tupa, Assistant. Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the March 12, 1985 meeting were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Warren Salmons briefly discussed the study session items oil the agenda. COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: Commissioner Sobel showed a new drawing idea or the City's entrance sign. Commissioner Libarle asked about the stop light changes at Washington and Petaluma Blvd. NOTE: Strike -Out Type ( - - - -) = Deletion Underline Type ( ) = Addition PUBLIC HEARINGS I. CR'EEKVIEW COMMONS, MONROE STREET AT ELY BLVD. (VARIOUS A.P. No's (3.272A) . 1. Consideration of P.U.D. Amendment to allow minor revisions in private yard areas, unit footprints, and landscaping plan. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Leon Costantin - 159 Franklin St., Napa owner/ developer. The public hearing was closed. A. motion was made by Commissioner Head and seconded by Commissioner Sobel to recommend to the City Council approval of the amendments to the 1 252 PUD Unit Development Plan based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. AYES: 6 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Serpilio) Findings 1. " ' Said amendment to the plan clearly results in a more desirable use � • of land and a better physical environment than would possible under the original development plan. 2.- The PUD District, as originally developed i with no, change *proposed, has a suitable relationship to one (1) or more thoroughfares; and no additional traffic is anticipated as a result of the proposed amendment. 3. - The plan amendment continues to present a unified and organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in • relation to adjacent properties, and adequate landscaping :is proposed to insure compatibility. 4. The natural and scenic qualities of the site are. protected with adequate available public and private spaces designated on the unit development plan, and no change is proposed. 5. The development of the subject property, in the manner' as proposed to be amended by the applicant, will not be to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City and will be in keeping with the general. intent and spirit of the zoning_ regulation of the City of Petaluma, and the-Petaluma .General Plan, and. with the Environmental Design Plan. CONDITIONS 1: All original conditions of approval of the . existing PUD unit development plans, Resolution 93.14 N.C.S. , shall be re= adopted as part of this development, plan amendment.. 2. Home occupations shall not be allowed, per the adopted CC . & R's. 3. Exterior alterations to structures or fences shall not be permitted without prior consideration and approval of the Homeowners Architectural Committee, as required by the CC & R's, and by SPARC : 4. Garage conversions are .prohibited, as set forth within the CC & R's. 5. Any other ,questions concerning land use regulation shall be governed by the City Zoning, Ordinance as long as it does not expressly conflict with the project 'CC & R's or the adopted PUD unit development plan. 6. Landscape and elevation drawin °gs subject to review and approval by SPARC. E 253' PLANNING MATTER: II. TEXT AMENDMENT - RESIDENCE IN C -H AS A CONDITIONAL USE. 1, Consideration of a zoning ordinance text' amendment to allow residences in C -H zones as conditional uses. The Commission - directed staff to return with a rewording, of the zoning ordinance regarding , residences in C -H zones_ as conditional uses. The following wording was suggested: . "A single pre- existing residence may be reoccupied even after a six months vacancy, but only with a conditional use permit." 0 co PLANNING MATTER: III. MOTELS IN C -H AND: -M -L - ZONING DISTRICT 1; Discussion of motels in M -L and C -H zones. The Commission, after discussion,: directed staff to return with a rewording of the zoning ordinance to allow motels in the M -L district only as a conditional use. Y PUBLIC HEARING: IV. FISCHER TRUCKING, 983 TRANSPORT WAY, AP. NO. 007- 503 -05 (2.337). 1. Consideration of a variance to permit reduced side yard setbacks. The public hearing was - opened: SPEAKERS: Bill Mondino - 979 Transport Way, Petaluma. 4lr. Mondino (owner of the property next to 983 Transport) , objected to the issuance of this variance to permit reduced side yard setbacks. He felt the allowance of reduced set backs on this 'property would be detrimental to the existing properties. Staff agreed to bring information to the next meeting regarding set back requirements in this area. The public hearing was not closed. This item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1985. 3 M STUDY SESSION: INDUSTRIAL AND HOUSING REPORT. DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS r - YEARLY A brief presentation was made by Mary Tupa, Assistant Planner regarding recent industrial, commercial and residential trends i ' Petaluma. An explanation of information available through the Community_ Development and Planning Department related to the above areas was given. PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION : .GP /.EDP UPDATE PROCESS. A presentation was made by Michael Moore Principal. Planner regarding the work being done by staff to update the General Plan. A brief outline of the staff working paper was given. Committee membersa were asked to interrupt with. qlLiestions at any time. A general time frame of one ` year (from March 26, 1985) .was estimated for the project. Items intended to be covered were mentioned. Public hearings have been scheduled to begin by the end of 1985. Commissioner Tencer asked if it was possible to revise the 12 month time line to 9 months. Planning staff felt that the one year time frame was very realistic. Commissioner Tencer asked when staff would have more information for the Planning Commission and Council. Commissioner Head stated that he felt the General Plan should take as much. time as necessary to be done right. Michael Moore 'stated that :special study sessions can be scheduled asap. s: He .noted that a facilitator, may* be , utilized for guidance.. The search for'. -•� . consultants is beginning. The time line for the next four to six weeks will be as follows: 1) Mapping of vacant and developable parcels in the City. 2) Definition of existing GP /'Zoning Ordinance inconsistencies. 3) Analysis of current GP per State guidelines for adequacy, legality. 4) In -house analysis of the 1968 plan and the 1978 EDP to. determine what is still valuable - what is workable -, what is not? Staff will ask for Planning Commission input on this item. 5.) Development of an RFP for :consultan -t(s) to create the GP - Survey to the general public regarding 'items to be contained in the new GP. 6) Creation of an organizational. chart to include other departments, committees, etc. and how they interface within the Community. 4 7) Development of a traveling public educational group for presentations throughout the City. Commissioner Tencer asked how other general plans have been updated by other cities. Michael. Moore replied that a study will be made of other updates, specifically Healdsburg, Sonoma, Sonoma County. Commissioner Libarle asked if a budget has been set aside. He questioned why so., many people /groups were to be 'involved. He questioned whether any answers can be found with such a large group involved. a Warren, , Salmons replied that the 1962 GP Committee had over 100 members. Commis'sioner Head asked if staff had any ' documents from the original GP Committee. Michael; Moore replied that we did not, but that the consultants had prepared a condensation in 1978 when the EDP was done. A Study Session was set up for April 16 to discuss quesfions and set up specific; mechanics. Commissioner Tencer requested information on how �GP has worked in other areas. He requested examples from other cities /counties, asap. Commissioner Libarle asked when staff would be making recommendations on their opinions. Warren `. responded that staff would make suggestions after their presentation to Council. I ADJOURNMENT: 9:45 PM. ATTEST: Warren Salmons Director, Community Development and Planning Department 5