Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/19/1975A G E N D A 0 TALUMA CTTYiPLANNING Q0 I MISSION REGULAR MEETIN'G CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PL EDGE ALEEGIANCE'T THE FLAG FEBRUARY 19, 197 7:30 P.M. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA ROLL CALL: Comm. Balshaw Bond Horciza Ma"ttei Popp Watets Hilligoss STAFF: Frank B. Gray, Direc Community Development APPROVAL OF MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE I CONSENT CALENDAR,: WAY-NE JOHNSON COMPANY, " SITE DESIGN. REVIEW.: SANTA FE .POMERQY - .,SITE DESIGN REVIEW: ADJOURNMENT• ,Sonoma_ County Referral James 'W,. Fr,-isbie, Use Permit for a self,-se gasoline gasoline stationat 3590 Petaluma Blvd. North. 2) 90qnald's.'Restaurant - Site design review consideration for the proposed site located in the Petaluma Plaza on Petaluma , Blvd. North: 3) Victor Nagel - Sit.&des,i,gn review consideration for proposed conversion from a recreational vehicle sales facility to a beer and; wine bar located at, 901 Lakeville Street. Continuation of site design review application of Wayne Johnson for the remodeling of an existing commercial building conversion to office use at 3`54 Petaluma Blvd, N ReV--ieta . Santa Fe Romeroy's site design for a tohcrete, batch plant located in the County on- Hopper- &t-reet extension.. x en-sion,. M N,U. T E S JIF6TALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WULAR MEETING" CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, - CITY. HALL PRESENT;: Comm. Bond,, Hillig6ss', Hor6iza, Popp; - Waters'' ABSENT: Comm. mand Balshaw STAFF: Frank B. Gray, :Directok-of 'Community Development.* Denh-is.,Bbehl j e;, .,Senior Planner _ FEBRUARY,. 19, 1975: TOO P.M. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA APPROVAL OF' MINUTES: Thet minutes of February - 4 - 1974 were'-approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE:, A letter from—the. of Commerce was read which recommended opose 1. .'sRestaurant and approval of -the cpr, A. site te :1br'. concurrence•with the :Santa Fe Pomeroy- The letter also indicated no -for the..Sonoma 'County Referral, the Victor Nagel, p.roj'ejct, and the Wayne Johnson , site. A letter if 'rom James:, M: Kennedy, Attorney was read, which requested, tha ­t h e: McDonald's- Restaurant project be continued 10 f or publl .p.:h6kt,ing at a; date several weeks in the future'because of parties he - represented - who.cou d,be Adversely affected 'by the logation.and -design of the structure- Mr. Gray therefore recom- ' mend ed that, thid item be removed .from the e-Consent Calendar to al ow further discussion. Comm: made-.,a inatloti. to, remove McDonald!s Resta:urant site desi f-rcim the, C.ons,en-t Calendar. The motion was seconded by Comm., Horciza. AYES - 5 N I OES I a ABSENT ; 2- CONSENT CALENDAR! .1) Sonoma County''Referrai, - James , W. Fr Use Permit-for self-gerv - i . c.e.,gds6line station as 3590 Petaluma Blvd. North. 2 _Victor Nagel - Site design. review consideration for the pr6posed'cPnVersion-from a-recredtionalt- vehicle sales .,ity-to a beer and wine bar located at 901 Lakeville Street. Comm—Horciza made -a motion to with recommendation t-fie . staff to. forward a, letter to the Sonoma County Board of zoning Adjustments opposing the ;requested Use - Permit„ of James W. Frisbie because of its :non conf orm'ance, - with, the City of Peta,1umVs:_EDP. and Gener'al: Pl n; and to approve the Victor Nagel : project with the ':conditions. of approval.. as recommended by the Architectural & 8,ite' Design Review' Committee, Comm. Popp seconded -the motion. AYES,- 5 'NOES. 0 ABSENT 2 A' Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, February 19, 1975 McDONALD',S;RESTAURANT, Mr,. Gray advised the Commission that,, as far as. he could ascertain - SITE DESIGN. REVIEW:,. the. letter from, Mr;. Kennedy related -o differences between -the shopping center management and the - tenants and not to the matter of site design_ review for McDona104 restaurant which was being considered by the Commission.. Mr. Dorsey,- ,MeDonald.''s Corporation, informed the - Commission that he had t:al.ked-to the attorney. -, Mr.. Kennedy:. He also stated that the fetter was` cq . ntrary . to the approval, they had '"'received from Mr.. Zurcher of - the Cinderella Boutique for locating McDonald's in the shopping' center: It was 0 clarified that Mr. Carl Anderson the other =' individual" represented by Mr: - Kennedy had leased .the •'Fire si.de,B'ook..Store,. wh ch'had recently moved to the Washington Square Shopping Center. Mr. S:tan-ley F,'elix,, managing, partner',for the, owners of the shopping center, . informed the Commission that the -le`tter had, just ,come to his, attention recently, and he did not feel that the two parties involved, had a strong ,interest in-the center-. He stated that Mr. Ander.son.=had broken his lease to move to, the Washington Square Shopping Center,'but because of the legality-of the situation was required to continue with the holding, of the lease at the''Pe_ta Plaza. Mr,.. Felix informed:. the.• , Coirimission that- `both Mr. Anderson and Mr. Zurcher- wanted °a' reduction in- rent- -from a lease signed' in : 1970, :and'•,their ,dispute is that he 'would hot give -them this reduction. He ,added. that -he did no_ t .feel the matter related to, ; McDonald' . &,, r. since both parties" had formerly expressed the desire fby., McDonald's in the location proposed°. Mr. Felix. clarified: that Mr.. Aiderson.'s lease -.did , not call-for his . written. concurrence l and. he felt Mr.. Anderson an adverse- interest= because: is "presently located in the.Wa`shingtgn ,Square Shopping..Center,, He also advised that, the bicycle shop,, which occupies the old. Fireside Book : Store location, had come in at a time pOsequeht , but ; the -,owner had verbally stated that he was perfectly, willing to allow :McDonald's to: 'come 'in:. ` ... 'The City: .,Attorney was, a ;sked.K if; the Commission, was; under' any, legal .- rest:aning order because. of the letter.. Mr. Hudson replied that the Commission.was not„ since the letter asked .for a public hearing, and ,although Architectural & Site Design.Review Committee or the Commission could r.ecommend.a public hearing, there was nothing in the Zoning' Ordinance to.•compel, them to do so.. He added that in order for the matter to be, appealed to the Council, the com- plainants, would have to be interested parties, and.he was.not -certain if' these - . two' individual -s would really qualify. Mr. Gray informed the : Commission 'that they•wer:e only to deal with the actual site- desgin review and wer:et not; obliged to enter into Any personal ..dispute,: , He , ,s'tated that parking had been the only objection that .had %be :en raised .`to his knowledge, and a review of J the parking situation indicated.an- excess of 2,5'0 parking spaces considering the entire shopping center plus McDonald's. . -2- -3- Petaluma Planning Commission Minu't:e's, F. 'bruary 19 19 Mr. Don Bennett, Promotion 'Director'f,or the Plaza representing the Merchants' Association, stated :that the Board of D rectors. had recently met arid reaffirmed their support. for McDonald's and expressed concern r,egar'ding the ineernal,dispute. Chairman .g_ifi, goss stated felt that the 'existing southernmost driveway to. 'North McDowell :Blvd;., should used for egress only. Comm: WA . eers , stated that the question of. "egressi only had come up at " site design review meeting, `and had. been changed to ingress egress because the 'Traf f ic' Engineer had approved its adequacy. Comm. Bond expressed'c'oncern regarding, the egress only, and asked if the R` Arco­s,'tation manager was in agreement. Mr., 'Gary Flynn the,pot'ential licensee fo 'r McDonald's, stated he had' talked to the Arco station,,manager,, and `although he was unhappy with the proposed traffic .plan, he would accept- it since he knew that ~the;new restaurant would boost ;his business. Mr. Flynn added that "he did not 'feel that egress only would make a difference to • - 'McDonald" s`. ; ,-ion to a - Comm. _Po pp made a mot ppove the site.design. with conditions as recommended.b,y, the Architectural & Site Design Review Committee and.. - the added condition that 'the southernmost accessway be egress only;'., Comm. Horc za seconded the motion. AYES 3 NOES 2 ABSENT 2 :O Mr. Gray, stated that he felt the_coricer,n of Comm. Waters and Comm. Bond. in their ''No" vote,. which was has ed•on the accessway being changed to egress only, and asked the 'Commission to review the site. again`after'the restaurant had. been in operation for a period . of time. WAYNE JOHNSON.COMPANY Mr: :Gray °br.iefly.reviewe'd' proposal to convert an existing, - SITE' °DESIGN REVIEW: commercial bui!,ld' ng for office use at 354 Petaluma Blvd. North. He reminded the Commission'tla,t,, because of their concern regarding parking', Mr. Johnson had been,asked `tb either obtain parking in the immediate. 'area `or _to determ "ne if access to . the • rear . of the site was possible' to provide parking;. Mr. Johnson -at this :time, 'had' asked `the Commission to consider, the adequacy of 'leasing parking spaces.. for a 3 -year period-'from the Pr-:eston' Automgtive Center however'; the full ordinan'ce,re'quirement,'would be for 7 parking spaces.. Mr .Gray advised that the Architectural.& Site - Design-Review " Cotlml ttee had ''..met'to: consider .the' request 'and had asked the staff to mak'e•a special s'tudy "Poultry.S 'treet to see.if it could be used for access to the rear of the property. The staff report was read, wh -ich' "indicated that`,'as far, as could be determined, the access: is an,old: railroad right -of way'and deeds would have to be researche,d.;'to determine the e,xact, status. Discussion followed. regarding the owriersYfp of the "easement and the possibility of Mr. Johnson ".utilizing the adjacent ' rt for parking, through an easement: ?with' ;`Preston Automotive Center. If the access could be obtained,., The Commis'sion.dir:ected. the staff to pursue the matter further with the Railroad' and the County. -3- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, "February 19, 1975 SANTA FE POMEROY. Mr Garay presented the Commission with,.a copy. of the plans ,for �. SITE DESIGN REVIEW: the batch* 'plant curr;enthy under construction for Santa Fe Pomeroy and stated` that,. the , :County",. :was holding °,up,, final approval of the: project to •see if` the Planning Commission - would ; require further 'cond:itions;. He' also ,stated that, .since the •project was visible . from the freeway bridge, the .aesthe'tic , .nature of the project should be .considered.; , Mr;., Gray informed 1, the,Commssion.• that lie K., ;had suggested to Mr. ; Lloyd Johnson of the; County that they "obtain comments from -the :Bay Ar":ea..; Air .,Pollution- ­ C pt District, the : - Corps of Engineers., and .any dth6r. agency who might. have jurisdic -. Lion, since an EIR -had not prepared ::;for`; t_he project. Mr. ,Johnson in - -turn had passed on. this re'spbn'sibility to Santa LFe Pomer.o.y . r ;Mr. Richard : Mogel, Engineer, for.,Santa Fei'P,omer:oy, stated he had. talked with 1,16y4.:.Johnson.,, ,who had recommended thatt a "permit be obtained,. from the Bay. Area- Air Pollution Control Disttic't, the; Corps • of En.g n:eer- s, and. the- Water • Qua:11ty Control Board'. The Corps of En:gineer.s!. had.••advised Mr.: ; Mogel that the project was not under. their Jurisdic :tion, and they would,- f OL rwaTdi aL letter so :s.tatn'g. ,The' ,B_ay Area Air; Pollution -Control 'District. 'had askedi the types-;o_f. emission..points,, ,.type L 'of emission, and',mitigating fac o,rs Mr:.:Mogel ,=stayed;: -the infgrmaton had been submitted t them for review and'It ha: t'they wound also make a final'inspection when the prod ec;t was, in operation,. ' - :Quality Con`tro1;='Boar.d: "ndca;ted were concerned • -wit -h emissions :into the,• :Petaluma „•River. Mr:. Motel informed the Commission: that'.�util'izat -ion. of. ,a settIlin:g, basin would eliminate the .emission.. info the river, and that th'e;�County had stated; the settling* - basin was adequate-as long a's•the di +ke,was high enough for the. 100 -year flood 1evel.. The question:. of pl,anting., :eu'calyptu • .tr•; es, as a: but e.r was Mr. ` Mogel :s_tated. that the :..County. :Planning -. Department "had'. con - sidered° screening" t :h °e s . tet.with tree" "s, but • felt 'tl a't it,-would not,. -dq much good „' because. of , the height of the freeway 'in relation to 'the • p,ro.j ect : It• had ' also been felt-that the structure would not: seem. as high from :the elevated- freeway looking down.. It -was noted that the project ,:is across the river from where.-a residential dev'61 opment. -had.. been” proposed,: Mr. Motel ,advised. that. trees had.: •already. been. plaiite"d !'along the river `to. screen off the site. H& site. that.the.,p.roject would•be painted ;green 11 _ ... : and that,, the base frame had already,been.constructed. Comm`.: Horc za_" expressed concern: regarding, addit'iorial pol -lut -ion, in this area Mr Mogel in- 'ormed.;the on that the :Air Po11u- tion Control Distric review. the. profec;t to determine if the collection: sysfem was of sufficient. capacity.," He. also 'stated" that some,.• of . the present . water. pollution, problem is, .because : of waste wa4ter. disposal :;going into the river, which they would no' ,t be doing. -4 Peta uma City Planning Commi "ssion,Minutes,`February 19, 1975 'Mr. Gray questioned the noise levels and the, possible effect on the p. roposed residential development across the ;_river. Mr. Mogel stated that: it was difficult to determine but that - distance was In their favor- Mr. Gray asked the;Coimniss on if.there were any additional condi- tions :that the? Planning: Commission felt should be added. Comm. Po,pp..made a motion. to forward .a letter to the. County requesting; that they °insure. .all ,requir.ed permits are obtained and to let, the Commission be aware of 'them, 'The motion was seconded b Comm,. Waters,. AYES 51' NOES- 0 -ABSENT.. -:2� . j . OTHER BUSINE�S.S:< In res to, Comm. Water's inquiry, Mr.. Gray stated that Al Stack had been made aware that the City dump site could be pur- chased.for a dismantling.op.eration, but no response had been,teceived from him. The ,Washingaon..Creek .'linear pa<rk'. petition heard> by the. City Counc -1 on, 18, .19755 - waas b "ti'efly discussed. ,*ADJOURNMENT`: There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8 : 55 p m-. -5-