HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/13/1985' � - _ ' Y Z mo t! •.
'r Nqt Official 'Until` Approved.
4 By Tlze. Planning Commission
-
". MINUTES
Petaluma Planning.. Commission.. August 13, 1985
Regular Meeting : 7:30 p.m.
City Council Chamber -s - Petaluma; California
'PR•ESENT: Commissioners Head, Hilligoss, Libarle,, Read, Serp lio, Sobel;
Woolsey,,,;
ABSENT: Nonea. ,
STAFF: Warren Salmons; Planning Director
Mike. Moore, Principal Planner
' Pamela Tuft,, Principal `Planner
;i
APPk:6VAL OF MINUTES.: Minutes. of the July 23, 1985 meeting, ,were, '
approved with a spelling; correction on page I.
DIRECTORS REPORT: Planning-, Director Salmons pointed out new colored:
r t orung map "in ouncil`. Chambers r �- � � ` _
r
Cfi7MIvITSS O!1�TERS'!'`RE1? RTi'h Comm s5ibriersL" Head - nd' Sobel; „ requested- z� -a•.
x written a inition o of feathering” :' from ,staff' as soon. as possible
Commissioner_ Hea ask ed that the view reservation issue be taken to the
City iCounc`..; .
NOTE: Strike -Out Type ( - - -) = Deletion
- Underline Type ( ) = Additions .
PUBLIC. HEARINGS _
L.. ". ;PETALUMA NORTH LIMITED, COUNTRY: WEST: SHOPPING' -: CEN.TER,.
1390 NORTH MCD:OWELL BOULEVARD.., AP NO. 137= 010 -86 (2.341)
('Conti Wed. from 6 / 23:), .
1. Consideration of- , variance to allow free-standing ,'pole: sig-n.,
The public °hearing; was •continued from the ,June 23', _ 1985 meeting.
I
SPEAKERS: Richard 'Lieb 1 B'odega - applicant's representative.
'Spoke in favor of granting; variance: Distributed• a
petition from store owners' in Country West requesting
sign variance Mr _Iieb stated they would 'lower r-the - -
�. _.. _._ _ .. -- - --
sign; height to not . exceed the building height
(approximately 20!
't
1• ' -'
Reed Smith - InterCity Property Management Corp.
representative of shopping center owner spoke in,
favor of the sign variance.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Head and seconded by Commissioner
Serpilio to approve the requested sign variance.
AYES: 4 NOES: 3 ABSENT: 0
II. ACME- WILEY CORPORATION,. ALLSTAR INN. 1368' NORTH MCDOWELL
BOULEVARD,, AP No. 137- 010 -67 (2.342)-.
1. Consideration of variance to allow sign. area in excess of maximum.
allowable .
2. Consideration of appeal of Department decision on sign program..
The public hearing was opened'..
n
SPEAKERS :. Mr.. Sam Navarra - .Novato- Stated that he had no
interest in this. particular property and asked general,
questions regarding- signage in Petaluma.. -
the- , public, hearing,, was. closed.
A motion was�s made by Commissioner Woolsey and seconded by Commissioner '
H lligoss to: deny the request for variance based on the findirigs' in. the: staff-
r.eport..
AYES: 7 0 ABSENT': 0
Findings'
a. There are no peculiar and unusual conditions, inherent in the
property in question .sufficient to cause a hardship:.,
b., A variance is. not. necessary for the preservation and. enjoyment. of
substantial. property rights possessed by other properties in the -
same zoning district and vicinity, and that- a variance, if
granted,, would constitute a special privilege..
IN
c. That authorization of such a variance would be of substantial`
detriment to adjacent, property a nd would materially impair the
purposes of the zoning ordinance and the public interest.
A motion was made by Commissioner Sobel and seconded, by Commissioner
Hilligoss to deny the applicant's appeal of the Community Development
-- D'epartment's- decision. on -.the proposed .sign-_.program, = - _
AYES: 7' NOES: 0 ABSENT: 01
2
III. ;,QANTAS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PARK PLACE VI and VII,.. AP.
;No's - (VI) - 136 - 111 -31 (portion), (VII) - 136- 111 -28, 29, 30, ''3,2
,(3.243A) .
i
I. Consideration of EIQ.
2. Consideration of revision to Unit Development Plans.
The ,'public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS: Mr. Jon Joslyn - Qantas Development - spoke in favor of the
and answered questions from the Commission.
The 'public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Libarle and seconded by Commissioner
Head • to recommend to the. City Council issuance of a negative declaration.
per the findings in the staff report.
AYES: 7 NOES: 0 ABSENT-. 0
Findings
1. The project does not have the potential to- degrade the- quality of the
;environment, substantially reduce. the habitat of 'a fish or wildlife
''species', cause• a. fish• or wildlife- population - to drop 'below
'self = sustaining- levels, threaten - to eliminate a plant or animal`,
community,. reduce the number or restrict the range of a. rare or
endangered plant or animal. or eliminate important examples of major
periods - of California. history or prehistory - .
Z f,The project does not. have the potential. to achieve short term to. the
"'disadvantage of long term environmental' goals
3'.. 'The project does not have impacts which are individually limited; but
cumulatively considerable..
4_ 'The project as conditionally approved,. does not have environmental
effects which will. cause. substantial adverse effects in human . beings'.
either directly or indirectly:
5'. The project is subject to Site Plan and Architectural. Review pursuant
to Petaluma Zoning Ordinance section 26 -41 et' al.
6.. Adequate provisions have been made for the retention of significant
vegetation or its gradual replacement.
A motion was made by Commissioner Head and seconded by Commissioner
Sobel` to recommend approval to the City Council of the PUD development
plan�'revision as described in the staff report subject to the findings and
conditions listed in- =the=- staff report as amended. -- -- -
AYES: 7 NOES: 0 ABSENT 0 , - ,
9
QQ:d 4, 2
A motion was made by Commissioner Sobel and seconded by Commissioner
Head . to. :rescind the,; above- motion -. due =ao ,misunderstanding.: regarding -the
items to be included.
AYES: 7 NOES: 0 ABSENT: ' 0
A motion was made
'by Commissioner Head and seconded by
Commissioner.
Sobel to recommend
'approval
to the City Council of the PUD
development
plan revision as described in
the staff report as amended concerning the
}unit change only
AYES: 7
NOES::
0 ABSENT: 0
A motion was made
by Commissioner Sobel and seconded by
Commissioner
.Head to recommend
approval
to the City Council. of the ?UD
development
plan revision as described
in
the staff -report as amended concerning_ the
trees only
AYES.: 6
NOES:
1 (Serpiiio) ABSENT: 0
Finding
A.
'The -modified' PUD development .plan will not.. increase traffic or have a _, .., -.
negative effect on roadways. -
That - the ;plan for the proposed :development presents a unified .an
organized . arrangement of buildings and ..service facilities •which are
appropriate in relation to - adjacent. ,or nearby .properties and ..that _ 7 `
adequate 'landscaping and/or screening is included, as conditionally
.approved, to insure compatibility.
1C. That the natural and scenic' qualities of the site are protected, as
- conditioned., with adequate available public and private spaces
, on the Unit Development Plan.
D. That the development of the. subject property, gas .conditioned, will not
be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of
tithe City and will be in keeping with the general intent and ispirit of
=the zoning regulation of, the City of . Petaluma, with the Petaluma
, 'General Plan, and with any applicable Environmental -Design Plans
::adopted by the City.
'E. The modified „plan, as conditioned., will result in a more desirable, use
=S f land and better physical environment than would be possible under
any single zoning district or combination of districts by reducing;
vacancies, and reducing maintenance and hazards through repair of
hazardous trees.
Conditions
1. All existing trees, located in the eucalyptus grove (Park Place VI,
Phase 6) ,, those .trees Idcate,d, within 40 feet of Park Place Drive °plus
the westernmost eucalyptus tree (as shown on Exhibit "B" of the. staff
. report) , -plus the 80- ;inch diameter eucalyptus shall be retained.
4
0®0
10.. -All modifications approved herein are subject to site plan and
architectural review pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 26 -401 (Site
Plan and Architectural Approval-)-.
11. • All previously approved conditions of the Park Place VI and VII PUD's
shall remain in full effect.
IV. TOM W. NEWTON, REDWOOD OIL COMPANY AND
AMARAL /SINGLETON, NORTHWEST CORNER OF CORONA AND
INDUSTRIAL AVENUE, AP No's 48- 080 -26, 150- 020 -04, 5, 6, 7 and 8
(portions =) AND CORONA ROAD= RIGHT -OF -WAY (portion) (3.343')'.
1. Consideration of prezoning of 4.9 acres to PCD (Rancho Arroyo
Business' Park.
5
E Exceptions to this condition shall only be permitted by the Director of
''community Development and Planning, if certain trees are determined to
be a hazard to private property or to other- eucalyptus trees. based on
a report by a qualified arborist or by initiation of Condition 2, below.
2.
('Those trees specified' to be retained, in Condition 1, above, may be
replaced by another species of fast growing 80 - feet or taller, trees if
I replanted in a gradual, phased fashion as .recommended in a written
'report' - from a qualified arborist to maintain the dramatic vertical visual
relief the existing trees provide as determined by the Director of
Community Development and Planning.
3.
All arborist reports required by these conditions for the Director of
Community Development and Planning shall be prepared at the
,applicant's expense.
4.
All areas where tree removal is permitted shall be planted with ground
if
cover subject to site plan review.
;'
5.
All eucalyptus trees which are to be removed shall be replaced on a
one -to -one basis by 24 -inch box specimen size trees:.
6.
The reduction in unit numbers shall not have any impact on land.
previously dedicated to the City (e..g. parks,; school sites,. etc.,).,,
-
fees, exactions, and other dedication's previously required. based: one
''ultimate number of units constructed.
--- r.i4��- carports-- s�mwrr- cm- t}r� -eazi irrg'-aPP ='ova -de 0pmcrrtt- Plan- -Sh -&H
' remasrr:.
8`...
A revised- development plan and landscape plan showing the approved-
changes shall be provided to the City .in. sepia original form within
thirty days of site plan approval of these modifications..
9.
Any trimming, cutting, and other maintenance . measures conducted to
the. eucalyptus trees required to remain shall be done either in
accordance with written arborist's recommendations or under direct
arborist supervision.
10.. -All modifications approved herein are subject to site plan and
architectural review pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 26 -401 (Site
Plan and Architectural Approval-)-.
11. • All previously approved conditions of the Park Place VI and VII PUD's
shall remain in full effect.
IV. TOM W. NEWTON, REDWOOD OIL COMPANY AND
AMARAL /SINGLETON, NORTHWEST CORNER OF CORONA AND
INDUSTRIAL AVENUE, AP No's 48- 080 -26, 150- 020 -04, 5, 6, 7 and 8
(portions =) AND CORONA ROAD= RIGHT -OF -WAY (portion) (3.343')'.
1. Consideration of prezoning of 4.9 acres to PCD (Rancho Arroyo
Business' Park.
5
r
- 00:0344 3L
The. :public.- .. hearin:g_ - 'opened.. - _ ._ -• _ _ _. -
SPEAKERS: Tom Newton - representative of Amaral /Redwood Oil Company
- in agreement with all staff conditions.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made. by Commissioner Serpilio and seconded by Commissioner
;Head to recommend to the City Council that a negative declaration be
approved 'based on the findings -in the staff report.
AYES: 7 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0
Findings
1. No ,significant environmental impacts have been identified with the
project.
'2. The project is consistent with all applicable General Plan /EDP policies
-:and Land Use :Designations and . the `proposed zoning -designation is �
, compatible- with the General Plan recommendation.
A motion was. - ,made by Commissioner ..Hilligoss and .seconded by Commissioner
�Serpil o to recommend to the City Council .approval of the - prezoning based f
on the .findings :in the staff report.
.AYES : 7
Findings
NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0
1
1. The ;proposed prezoning is consistent with the applicable provisions of
the General Plan/EDP.
2. The prezoning will insure that, the future annexation of the subject
..properties - will represent an orderly and logical extension of the City -
Limits.
3. The project will not be detrimental to the health_ , safety, or public
welfare of the community or surrounding property owners.
V. DUFFEL FINANCIAL CORPORATION, SHELTER HILLS VILLAGE, I &
II, GARFIELD DRIVE AT ST. AUGUSTINE WAY AND MEADOWVIEW
- DRIVE, AP No. 17- 060 -21, (3.338, 6.662) .
1. Consideration of P:UD rezoning and development. plan.
2. Consideration of tentative map for 1'53 -lot subdivision.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS: Mr. Van Logan - applicant - answered questions regarding,
project; expressed "concerns re: staff :report PUD
conditions 6 and 16 and Tentative Map conditions 5 -, 6,
10 and 11.
0
0: rJ ,
Ken Keane - 1903 Marylyn Circle - comments re: negative aspects
Of existing homes, density of new project.
Joe Berlanga - Corner Weatherly and Garfield - concerns
I, regarding flooding.
John Anderson - Project Engineer - McKay and Somps - explains
drainage of area..
Bruce Hagen - 840 Garfield Dr. - concerns re: noise mitigation,
Garfield Dr. speed restrictions.
Linda Butterfield - 2001 Marylyn Circle - concerns re: density,
traffic, drainage.
Dick Hernandez - 2047 Weatherby Way - concerns re: flooding.
lack of open space.
Don Daniels - 724 Garfield - concerns re: safety of airport
!' landing patterns, flooding, Garfield Drive traffic
problems.
{ Dellia Tamayo 73 Astoria Circle - concerns re: soils expanding
under homes.
The 1public hearing was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
August 27, 1985.
PLANNING. MATTERS
- VI. iiSONOMA- COUNTY REFERRAL :. DRAFT STUDY` REPORT OF: THE'
� SONOMA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT's DRAFT PETALUMA
DAIRY STUDY..
This 4tem was continued to_ the. Planning, Commission meeting: of:" August. 27,
1985!..;
VII.:, iDISCUSSION: GENERAL. PLAN CONSISTENCY CONCERNING THE
PROPOSED PURCHASE. OF PROPERTY AT 120 PETALUMA BOULEVARD
NORTH.
Following general discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Head and
seconded by Commissioner Libarle to- certify that the acquisition by the City
of Petaluma of the property located. at. 120 Petaluma Blvd.. N. is consistent.
with the . City's General Plan..
4
AYES: 7 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0
VIM]' PLANNING COMMISSION GENERAL PLAN COORDINATING COMMITTEE
1AND SUB- COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS.
• is
Michael Moore, Principal Planner, distributed assignment preference forms
and gave a short update on General Plan progress.,
- ADJC
RNMENT: 11:30 PM.
7
H G 46
Not Official. Until Approved
By The Planning Commsson
MINUTES
Petaluma Planning Commission
Regular Meeting August 27, 1985
- City Council Chambers 7 :3'0 p
Petaluma,, California
.PRESENT.: Commissioners Head:, Hilli oss,
g , Read, Serpilio, Sobel, Woolsey
ABSENT: Libarle,
STAFF: Warren Salmons, Planning. Director
Pamela Tuft, Principal Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: " Minutes of the August
approved with the Till—lowing, 13, 1985 meeti
g page 1, last paragraph :addition: 'Mr. Lieb
willing to delete or reduce the existing wall . signs on McDowell.''
CORRESPONDENCE: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT -.
. None. -.,
COMMISSIONERS' REPORT:
Commissioners Hilligoss- and Sobel reported on
the status o the ity o Petaluma sign project
Engineer's re . They reported that• ne
reports may be needed nor to" the w
P y p
granting. of. a sign permit.
Commissioner Sobel reported that
Commissioner /Council /Staff seminar the recent Planning,_
interesting:., in San . Luis Obispo was very-
Commissioner Sobel requested information the Poli from staff and .
the issue of Fortune Telling . within the City limits- a Chief: on
NOTE: Strike -Out Type (-'--) = Deletion
Underline Type ( ) Addition
PUBLIC HEARINGS':
(The following item
item I was originally scheduled as item II but. -was moved' . per written request by the applicant)`t. to:
L. JOSEPH AND ROSE BELLUOMINI, 433 ORINDA DRIVE, AP No.
149 - 133 -03 (1.475).
1 • 'Cons
ideration of Use ,_Permit , as allow
accessory dwelling; conv.eraion -of',= _garage t
The public hearing was opened
1 .
1
1.
I,
OOO Q 4 7
SPEAKKERS : Rose Belluomini - applicant - answered questions and stated
that the unit will not be used as a rental dwelling unit.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Sobel and seconded by Commissioner
Hillrgoss to recommend the granting of a use permit to allow an accessory
dwell1 g subject to the findings and conditions set forth in the staff report.
AYES;:!. 6* NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Libarle)•'
* Commissioner Read requested that City Council discuss conditions -.
(specifically time limit) limiting accessory dwelling use permits to�
specific period of time or specific property owner.
Fin
1. The proposed use, subject to the following conditions will conform to
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the policies - of the General
Plan /EDP .
2. The proposed use, subject to the following, conditions will not
c onstitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the
Con
1. The site. plan shall be revised to provide a minimum. of 26' width-
parking area so as to meet Site Plan and Architectural Review
Committee standards for three off = street parking spaces.
2'. The landscape plan shall be modified to provide a minimum 3' wide
p lanter area in front of the proposed addition -.
3.. The apparently uninspected construction shown existing on the plans
for the proposed accessory unit shall be inspected by the building
inspector and a building, . permit finaled before issuance of a certificate
of occupancy for the proposed accessory dwelling.
4. The project shall be subject to review by the Site Plan and
Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) before issuance of a building
permit for this accessory dwelling (per Zoning, Ordinance Section.
2b - 4010 .
N
II. DUFFEL FINANCIAL CORPORATION,, SHELTER HILLS VILLAGE I & II,
GARFIELD DRIVE AT ST. AUGUSTINE WAY AND MEADOWVIEW DRIVE,.
AP NO. 17- 060 -21 (3.338, 6.662). (Continued from 8/13/85 meeting).
1 . Continued consideration of PUD rezoning and development plan.
- -- 2. Corisideration of °i-tentative-' map .for = �1ot - 'subdivision.' -
The public Bearing was reopened.-
ti
��� 2
0 - 00-348;
SPEAKERS: Joe Berlanga - 624 Garfield - .questioned City Engineer
regarding. flooding, and detention ponds.
- Dick Hernandez..-_2P47, - Weatherby_ Way: : . - concerns. re g _ - -
. �g_ l -
ack
of open space; presented petition of neighbors against T
project; concerns regarding flooding.
Wayne Schwartz - 600 Garfield Dr. presented written text of
comments of. neighborhood. Concerns regarding EIR
adequacy,, airport expansion, demographic changes of area.
Alan Jones Sonoma County Residents For Sane Land Use -
working in conjunction with neighbors.. Expressed concerns
regarding EIR inadequacy, airport noise impacts,
inconsistencies with General Plan, avigation easement
inadequacy.
Ken Keane - 1903 Marylyn Circle - concerns regarding airport
expansion.
Ray Tomin - 1904 Marylyn Circle - .presented, letter .in opposition
to any development of area because of present lack of open
areas for airport safety.
Fred 'Tamuty - 1100. Wren - concerns regarding ,unsafe streets.
Theresa Haire - 2024 Appaloosa Drive - concerns regarding
lack of open ,space, ,traffic problems.
Jay Daly 12 Osprey concerns regarding :
Van Logan - Applicant - explanation of current development plan.,
Commissioner Head - addressed .Mr. Logan and said that he felt that
the project was unacceptable because , of the lack of
feathering of lots.
Alan Jones - stated that the ALUC requires a density of no more
than 4.0 du /ac.
'Barbara Pieper - 2012 Appaloosa - expressed flooding 'concerns.
Bruce Hagen - 840 Garfield Drive - expressed concerns over the
effect of airport expansion and flooding.
- The public hearing 'was closed.
The Commission questioned staff regarding the adequacy of the present EIR
(East of Ely EIR) .
A motion was :made by Commissioner - Head and seconded by Commissioner
Sobel to deny this request due to the inadequacy of the current (East of
Ely) EIR in the areas of drainage, airport, traffic, consistency with :General
Plan and the cumulative effects of all residential projects in the area with
regard to the above issues..
After discussion, Commissioner Sobel withdrew his second and the motion
died. _
A °motion. was made by Commissioner Hilligoss and seconded by Commissioner
Woolsey for continuation of action on this item un such time a s - further
information on areas of drainage., airport, traffic, consistency with General
Plan 'and the cumulative effects of all residential projects in the area with
regard, to the above issues can be supplied by staff..
By Commission consensus, staff will. organize a neighborhood / 'developer
meeting to discuss possible compromises.
.-I4;
3
3 1.9
AYES': 5 NOES °: 1 (Head) ABSENT: 1 (Libarle)
;
III. MCBAIL COMPANY, SPRING MEADOWS V, GARFIELD AND
APPALOOSA, AP No. 136 - 060 -47 and 48 (3.346, 6.664),
1. Consideration of Rezone to PUD and development plan.
;2. Consideration of Tentative Map for 92 single family dwelling /lot
subdivision.
This 1item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September
10, 1985.
�I
,
CONTINUED DISCUSSION ITEM
f
IV. SONOMA . COUNTY 'REFERRAL: DRAFT STUDY REPORT OF THE
SONOMA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DRAFT PETALUMA DAIRY
!BELT STUDY (Continued from 8/13/85 meeting).
This ! item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September
10, L985.
J ,
ITEM:
New ! foundation and structural calculations need to be done by an Engineer
before a permit can be- issued on the City of Petaluma entrance signs-
An consensus was reached to vote on amendments to Commission by -laws at
the next meeting of the Planning Commission,
;I