Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/18/1975PETAIUMA CIT'k PLANNING COMMISSION RE GULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL 'CHAMBERS, CITY -HALL PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE.•. TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL: STAFF: A G E N D A MARCH 18, 1975 7:30 P.M. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA Comm. Balshaw Bond Hiortiza,. Mattei Popp Waters Hlligoss Frank B. Gray,, Director of Community Development Dennis Aoehlj'e,' Senior 'Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE 1 1 CONSENT CALENDAR: ,Coastal Rental Center -'Site design revlew proposed equipment ren a yard at 100 Stony ,P6iftt Road. (Recommendation b staff and the. Architectural & Site Design Review Committee for approval with conditions as stated..) _AMNENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT E10 consideration of application submitted by Robert F. Carmody for WOVESTIONNAIRE the - proposed StTeet- Plaza to "include a 7-Eleven, Fbodstore and EVA LUATION I I ' -'"'D" space for additional retail stores to be located at 122 Petaluma STREET PLAZA::! Blvd. South.' WAYNE JOHNSON' Continuation 'of' site -de sign, :xeview application consideration f or COMPANY - SITE Wayne Johnson to..remodel.a.n existing commercial building for conver- DESIGN REVIEW:: sion to-office use at 354 Retal.uma Blvd. North. _Ug� - GREtNBRIARR UNTr - of revised Fin�al,M�apfor P o the'Greenbriar NO. 2, PHASE, I11I - Unit No.,. sion a-r- uar', Lots 23,, 14, and 28, as well REVISED FINAL MAP: as the LeAjca,;��7®r t oun�ty Water and the bike LA,CUMBRE-PET . ALUMA Appeal by •Jbseph W. Burton of' the conditions of approval of the PARCEL MAP APPEAL La,Ciimbre-Petaluma Parcel Ma p. OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL,: BODE A AV owneraand,Rlanning Commis the G ENtE/PAULA Con'sideration by the proper L LANE STUDY :5 '-pr'up,qsed plans for the Bodega A-,fehu*e/PaulA Lane Study Area. ;9k\ ,ADJOURNMENT �.,'•.. ,i i N U 'T E S P-ETALUMA CITY PLANNING CO_MMIS'STON MARCH 18, 19 T5 ( -REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. TY COLN.CIL CHAMBERS, PETALt ?rL4 CITY HALL. , CALIFOR.NI:A ^RESENT _Comm: 'Bond', Balsh . lW, Hi11igo;s -s, Ma .tei.,' Popp, Waters ABSENT: Comm. Hor ,._,.. , STAFF: ` Frank B. "Gray, Dkre'ctor o.f Community Dev'el'opment Dennis' Roe oe'hlje, Senior" Plariner " APPROVAL;.OF MINUTES: The minutes of March 4, 1975., were approved as submitted. CONS ENT'CALENDAR_,i Coastal_ Rental Center 'Site, design' review for proposed equipment rental ,yard a,t 100 ,Stop -y Point' `Road, (Recommendation by staff and the Architectural & Site Design Review Committee for approval with 'conditi'ons "as stated -.) Comm. Matte. -•made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar item ' as re p sented. The motion ways 'seconded, by Comm. Popp. AYES,` . .6 NOES 0 ABSENT' ' 1 IRONMENTAL IMPACT Mr. Gray brie °fly reviewed the project and advised that the Sonoma STI'ONNAIRE., F County Wa.te,x, Agency had 'sta'ted that, in accordance with the EVALUAT_ ION - ";D':' 100 -year flood plain,, all first 'floor elevations would have co be STREET PLAZA: at -. above 12,8'fee`t'nean'sea' level. 'It was also noted that the j Asst. City Engineer had felt that, since the project may have an adverse effect on the existing traffic, a traffic analysis should be conducted and evaliiated.befote site. design approval is given. 'The staff had therefore recommended that a traffic engineering report p p" y -a consultant should be submitted to the City Engineer. Mre advised that the Planning Commission could require ,a full E or continue de'tion on the EIQ until a traffic anahys -s had " beeen completed and 'ev "al'uated, Mr. Gray advised the Commission that'he did not concur with the staff repo,it "re'gard_ ng 'the architectural appearance of the. build•ing., but did e report furnished by Mr.. Larry concur with the _ Martin, the "Downtown hmpr Planner /Coordinator, relating to: the''lar'idscaping and, archi,tectu'ra1''de'sign. Discussion followed' rega,rd;ing the traffic aspect and it .was clatified that the proposal wa`, f two parcels of land, r'.:. " 'Carmody, rep.resentinc' `7 -1 °l Food Sa "ores, stated he would he agreeable to having; a: traff 'e survey .chnducted. He reauested i „ that the EIO determination be continued for approximately a month., `O 'Gomm. Pn . made a motion ' continue the . EIO determi- nation unti - the traffic analysis had been evaluated. The motion, was seconded by Comm. Waters,, AYES 6 NOFS. 0 ABSF, ";,' 't Fe City Planning Commission Minutes, March 1$., 1975 v.'sr''E.JOHNSON COMPANY. _Mn Gray advised the Commission that research of deeds had ind.i- _iTE DESTGN'REVIEW.: Gated that the applicant does not have public right -of' -way or easement to the rear of his property, and it would therefore be necessary for him to obtain'such a right -ol -way or easement from. neighboring pr- o;perty owners in order to p.rov.ide .parking to the rear of the s,ite. , The three options. the Commission could take were noted, .and Mr., Gray added that a, fourth alternative would be not to require any parking. The recommended conditions of approval for the site design were read... Comm:. Balshaw felt that since the building was a section-of a line of buildings, the offstreet parking s' +hould' also be considered for :other commercial activities not having access to 'the, rear of their sites, Mr. Wayne Johnson informed the.Commission that the neighboring property, owners did not wish to grant the.necessary easement, and therefore the only parking he could ;provide would be the three spaces Preston Automotive had agreed to lease to him for three years. Discussion followed regarding parking and neighbor- ing .commercial uses,, It was clarified that the s ; i.te would not be wide enough to allow adequate parking turn - around if the building was placed to the rear of the site., Discussion followed regard - ing parking and neighboring, commercial uses.,- Mr.,.Gray was asked how the.amouni of ,parking spaces had been determined'. He replied that it was based,on the square footage of the floor area of the building as indicated in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr.,Johnson'advised the Commission that revising the structure to a,one- story would decrease the, amount :of parking, "required, and he felt;t'best to revise his plans accordingly. Comm. Balshaw stated ,he felt off-street parking should be required in accordance with the Zoning- Ordinance and that parking ahould also be removed along Petaluma Blvd, in front of the site. and for the entirety of the block. Mr. Gray replied that a recommendation could be made to the City_ Council regarding the removing of parking:, but the Commission could not require it. ;Comm. Balshaw made a motion to r-equi're off - street parking else- where in the vicinity for the project and to approve the sire design with conditions as srat.ed. Comm. Popp seconded the motion. It was clarified that f.urt'her site design review would be required showing the one -story structure and the parking requirement for the revised structure, an,d therefore action on the site design was, not warranted at this .time. The motion was therefore changed to req :wire off:-street parking for the project elsewhere in the vicinity and to recommend.to the City Council that parking be removed along the entire block. %a AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 4,. r «' Pet, -AluWa' City Planning Commission Minutes,, yIarch '18, 1975, - 0CL. :13_RE'- PETALUMA Mr. Boehlje ?n.formed the Commission that the appeal by Burton L . *4AP - R•EAL Engineers was rega.r..ding the City Engineer's requirement for C� AP 0•F C'I'.vDITIONS' OF access and ttrat. the •Asst. City' Engineer; Toni ;iarg s, was present . to answer any questions. The layout' of the subject site was i p city, �t- gp:l.its :ere: prop "osed "j -n both explained and it was not ed that lo the county and tha..:Mr. Boehlje that although the applicant was willing to provide .easements Throughout' the parcels ;. both in the' county and in the city, they objected to a l ": i ^g "B" 7 Street as ,a main "access ;becau -se of, the slope and that a retaining wall ,would be required,; -and to the other two. accesses' because of the expense involved on the'first.and..the difficulty in obtaining the easement on the s'econd;;' Mr. :Harg i s+ -informed the _Cbmm ss,ion'th'at the only public access street indicated on-the parcel map was Hares Lane, and access 1 ' . ' is de ar :tu�ent' had.�'viewed the lots in the county. He advised that 'his p parcel map from a long -range . of land use as had rights ' were also given to t_, two planning .standpoint and .felt that, a mayor type. been previously suggested on this -sate would require major access ' stree`ts, ,arid Hayes would. not be suitable. It was also noted f; that if the, lots in the County were developed, Hayes Lane would ' be used' as 'an- access. I Mr. Joe•Bur'ton advised that; the County was only requiring one j' direct access street from .Hayes- Lane,,,-,and that the. property owners had' no imm'e'diate plans for development but were dividing { the ;property for investment purposes, only. Comm, Ma'ttei states` he felt tha- t, -I'B" •Street w as necessary to provide' ;ad'e- q'uate .access He then: ,questioned the City " -s "right to q gh the- adjacent properties. Mr. Gray re u re .ari easement thro.0 replied. - that •access provisions could be a ccinditaon to be ful- filled before the applicant could legally divides his land- up for °sale. He clarified that it would not matter if all of the site was in the city limits or not,. Comm: Popp stated that, ,he• -d id' not" `feel that 'Hayes .Lane alone would .pro 3de'- sufficient- Acc -ess.. The adequacy of "B" Street .,as an access was questioned, and -Mr. :Hargis answered that al houg "'B' "' Street was a collector street ; 'it 'would not be adequate for the ultimate deveilopment,of•.the site He further advised that at. ode time•. °45.0 units had been. proposed for the site, and more than one access street required for such a development.. Biar t_on stated that-, the ies of their, ;property', objec?tion to the ease - -ments within. the bou ' but were ot;j.eetir,g was "t e two easements required across the adjacent roperty. . It j to � .th P he bwners' 'fe;e'ling that these easement should not be required until the property they are located on. is developed, O Comm.. Balshaw did not feel'.the.loi split ' should. be approved until: proposed development was, 'n°dica •ed, 'since it would Watter, if I the lots were to be :kept' as one estate or to be farthe_ sub - d�vfded. Comm. Bond a1 ^so felt fhat it was important to know -3- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, March 1.8., 1975 . what would.be developed, on the site, and he felt that the ease' men's had' no value: unless it was known if the streets would go in accordingly. Comm. Bond 'felt thaw the Commission's concern was mainly availability to the property, which he, d_id not think Hayes Lane could' sufficiently accommodate. Mr,. Burton informed, the! Commission that 'th'e request was only for a lot split :for. two - lots , to be created in the City, and that adequate easement& for through flow of traffic would be provided. He. added that the ,. easemen.ts would not be tied down to any specific layout. on the parcel map, in :order -that their placement would be. .flexible for some.future subdivider. Comm. Bond protes=ted that Mr. Burton was not' projecting far enough into °the fut=ure to deter- mine what.accessways would actually be required.. Mr. Burton clarified that it w,as agreeable with the property owner;* to provide an access easement to "B" Street. Mr,. :Hargis confirmed, that-. the 'main ,access stireets. requested were "D" Street; "B" Street,, °and Western Avenue, and. that U' '`s Lane would remain as a minor street. Comm. 'Popp stated that once the parcel was .split and purchased, the purchaser would ,feel he had the..rigbt to develop it further. He. further stated ahat� if the parcels would. remain in the 20 -acre lots . the proposed access would be sufficient, but if homes were a to.be developed by additional subdivision, add access would be required. Comm. Popp added that it would be only logical to plan for future development at this time. ,Comm. Balshaw made a motion to deny the opppal and Comm. Bond seconded the motion.. AYES 4 NOES 2 ABSENT 1 The applicant was informed that his appeal had been denied and he had 'the right to appeal this decision, 'to the City Council. A'JOURNMENT: The meeting, ad'jo:urned at 8:35 p,.m. to a joint study 4session of property, owners and the Planning Commission regarding the proposed plans for the Bodega.Avenue /Paula Lane Study Area. -'4,-