HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/15/1975A G` E N ,D.: A
"ETAL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 15, 1975
EGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY. HALL : PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
,PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE ,FLAG
ROLL CALL -' Comm. Balshaw Boid Horciza Mattei Popp
Waters Hi1ligoss
STAFF: Frank B.. Gray, D:r,ector of Community Development
Dennis-` Boehlje, Senior. Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CORRESPONDENCE =
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 1) "V , S tree,t, _Plaza - Continuation of EIQ consideration. of appli-
QUESTIONNAIRE cation submitted .by•Robert,,,F•. Carmody for the proposed "D"
EVALUATION$;: Street Plaza to -include a 7 Eleven - Fo.odstore` and space for
a.dditional.xetai'1 stores' "to be located at 122 Petaluma Blvd.
?South.
2) David-Notes EIQ canside.ra.ton,. for proposed chiropractic
office and 'rental area to be located at 7Q9 /711 Petaluma Blvd.
North.
3) ';Zoning. Q.rd nance No,. 1072',N,:twS. ,.Annual: Update - Public
Hearing _..to' consider. `the EI'Q submitted• din ;conjunction with
proposed ; amendmen.ts, to Zoning Ordinance 'No. 1072 N.C.S;. -
4 Norm 'Neilsen, t al Publ
.) , e - is Hearing: to• consider the EIQ
submitted in conjunction ";with a °rezoning. request -from .0 -H .
to R- M- G.District for approximately 7 acre located at
67 .Mag.nolia Avenues.
WASHINGTON 1) Revised Traf Analysis - . Dealing with the requested
PROFESSIONAL expans -ion in floor area of .the proposed' professional office
PARK: complex to 'be `located at the southeast of East
Washington and Ely'Blvd: South.
2) S ite D,es gn Review,, - Consideration of the site design for
the proposed Washingt- pn,Pr;ofessional Park.
NORTHERN CALIFORN -IA Site design. . x-eview for the proposed Nor:the,rn California Savings
SAVINGS . &LOAN & Loan Association .building -to be. located at 101 Western
ASSOCIATION 4 `. SITE Avenue,.
D ESIGN REVIEW:
Petaluma City Planning Pommis.sidn Agenda, April 15, 1975
CITY COUNCIL. Consideration of LAFCO's City-County Planning Policy Committee
REFERRAL: recommendations on the definitio of "Wha-,t is Urban and Wha Is
Rural..
COMMISSIONER'''S:
REPORTS /REQUESTS
ADJOURNMENT
-2-
-T E. S
I- N U
PETALUMA CITY PLANNING. COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING.„ CITY HALL,
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
PRESENT: Comm. Bond, Hilli doxciza, Mattei" 'Wa.t e s
APRIL 15, 1975
7:30 P.M.
PETALUMA• CALIFORNIA
ABSENT-: Comm. Balshaw, Po pp
STAFF: Frank B. Gray. Dirdctor of Community.Development
lennis',Boehl'e
* �Sen_ior ft
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of April "1,, 1475 were , app roved" as submitted.
'CORRESPONDENCE: The (6i . was, notified,. of two educational courses being
offered' l.. ..A. Two-Day ppsium
Sym entitled 'Needs Assessment
and' Program Evaluation to be h.ei,d,.:N[dy .9 -.10 in Irvine, and
A. Short .Course for Planning Commiss-inners and Elected
Off icials. entitled "Land,-Use Planning and Development 'Law
i '
., California: - Current Practices and Future -Directions, . to
be held, June '20 . -_21 in San .Francisco. The Commissioners'
were advised that anyone wishing shimg to attend these courses
sh tild, advise the Dept. of Comfau ni ity'Development so that
funding could be requested from the City Council. Comm,.
Mattelsuggested that it might = be useful to the staf.f.and'
iCty.Atto.rney to attend the latter session to keep abreast
of land-use laws.
2) The - : t ' ion was advisetha a letter had ,,
been -received
from Development' Co, I rporation: requesting 'that the
Planning 'Commis.s1on .consider the amended Final Map for
Oreenbfidr' ion Unit 2, 'Phase III this evening-,,.
However,, all of the material necessary to allow the City
tngirieek to sign and submit the amended Final Map to
Planning Commission had not.,been provided. Comm . Horciza,
made a motion to. continue the matter until adequate- inf or'
'matiory had. been supplied.,,;,. Comm. 'Waters seconded the'motibn;
the vote was unanimous,.
3') A memb, frotl the City Attorney relating to proposed- changes
t - cleslgn, review procedures as requested by,th6
Planning: Comm was briefl reviewed.
ENVIRONMENTAL. I MPA C T
QUESTIONNAIRE
EVALUATIONS:1.
A&
Street Plaza Continuation of the EIQ,- consideration: of
appl ication submitted by Robert F. Carmody for the proposed
" S'treet Plaza to include a 7 - -Eleven Foodstore and space
�
for additional retail stores, to be located at 122 Petaluma
Blvd.' South;
The Commission -was: advised, that the re'quested traffic
analysis ha d d' b een een rezeivad. ;too late for the City -Engineer's
office to evaluate, and respond" to the C.Ommission..
i
Petaluma City Planning ;Commission Min'u'tes, April l5, 1975
Comm:., Matte - made a motion. to continue, the EIQ consideration.
for the .pr;oj 'to the next meeting. Comm, Waters seconded'
the motion.; the vote was unanimous.
2) Dr David•Noles EIQ consdera_ti.on for proposed chiropractic
.office and .commer:cial.rental area to be located, at 709/711
Petaluma Blvd. North:
The project was briefly explained to the Commission,. It was
noted ..that the only adverse effect would be
the7 displacement of four families' when the existing units
are demolished, and that consideration should be given to
'alter=nate housing for "those people. The.staff_ had recommended -
that, a re.loca.tion, plan be provided. by the applicant. The
.Commission was further advised .that,Dr. Nolen had submit,ted.a
letter to the department stating that the displaced tenants
_would be placed in other rental units in the area, which
should be.availab:le by the process 'of normal attrition, and.
that a new' .rental unit would be available. on, May 1, 1975.
Dr. Noles had also proposed to convert the 'existing office
into two rental units; .however-, Mr, Gray advised' the Commis-
sion.that this to would not be permitted in a C'
-H
District,.
'Comm.. . que's'tioned, if' :it was, the ap'p licant's responsibil-
ity to-relocate the tenants. Mr. Gr-ay•replied that it would
not be required by law; however
CEQA mandates that displace- .'
;merit-of tenants must be considered in Environmental Law. He
added that it not be mandatory, to disapprove the project
'if the tenants were .not relocated.;' but the, Commission could
establish a, policy °requiring the of- displaced
tenants. The' question: was raised .as to whether the tenant's
had been notified. of the proposed. action.
Mr-. 'Bill Combs„ Valley of the Moon Realty', addressed the
Commission representing Dr. . Noles., He advised .that, ;Dr. N"oles
owns 16 rental units,in the:same price range as the units to
be demolished,:and is also completing a new unit. It was
felt that normal attrition would make these units available-
and Mr. Combs stated. that his' office would also assist in
placing 'the tenants with no inconvenience or' increase in
rent. Mr. Combs. informed the Commission that the tenant's
had not b.eeri notified as of; - yet'„ since 'd'efinite word on the
approval of the project was desired .before contacting.them..
The vacant .land at the rear of` the property was questioned.
Mr. Gray explained that the zoning line went through the lost
and the rear of the lot, was zoned R =C. The access to -the
lot was explained and'i,t was clarified that the rear portion
of the lo would not be landjlocked, ,since the proposed drive-
way would furnish adequate access and the three lots to the
rear of the site were also owned by the,app'licant.
-2-
Petaluma City. Planning Commission. Minutes,, April 15, .1,975
.' Comm: Bond. a motion to direct the Director of Community
Development to. prepare and. post a, Negative Declaration for
the,pro.j`ect Comm._ Horciza,seconded the motion.
AYES 5. NOES , O . ABSENT 2
3) Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 .N " ".C.S. Annual Update - Pub
Hearing�to consider the EIQ subm in conjunction with
prop,'osed. amendments ' to Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S
The Commission.
,was advised that ;`under .CEQA, amendments to
the Zoning Ordinance had to, be. considered to determine if an
adverse environmental effect would' exist. The proposed
amendments_wer.e' briefly reviewed.
Comm. Mattei mentioned. the. state of deterioration of existing
fences. in the city and questioned what. the City could do to
ensure adequate fences in the. future. Mr. Gray advised that
the Ch ief Building Inspectgthad su "ggested higher standards
and. he would obtain. the specifications for the Commission
for the next meeting.. C6. Mat %tei.,stated he felt that any
change: in ,the specifications should have good public exposure:
Comm.. Matted questioned whether the PUD section of the -Zoning
O..rd nance would be changed. Mt,..Gray, advised that the staff
i is presently undergoing research to rewrite the entire P-,CD
and.PUD sections of the ordinance; as was proposed in next
year' Program of Ser ice,.
The. Public. Hearing . was opened. No comments were offered from
the audience and the Public Hearing was closed.
Comm. Waters made ,a: motion to direct the.Director of Community
Development; to prep at' and�post a.Negative Declaration for the
proposed amendments to the Zoning ,Ordinance, Comm. Mat
seconded the motion. "
- AYES 5 NOES Q ABSENT 2
4) Norm', Nielsen, et al - Public ,Hearing to consider the:ElQ sub-
mitte"d. in conjun'ction, with a rezoning request from C- H to
R -M_ -G Dis,tr; ct for, °approximately one acre located at
67 Magnolia Avenue:
The Commission was apprised of the zoning and existing uses
of the sites surrounding the,proposed pro'ect'. The comments
of the reviewing agencies regarding the 'environmental aspects
of the project' were briefly reviewed, The. Commission was
advised that
'be proposal was to rezone the site to a R -M -G
Di +strict, but that only a duplex would be built at this time.
It wars noted that 'the C -H zoned portion of the project would
• be developed co_mmerc- Tally,
}
Petaluma City, ; Planning Commission Minutes, April .l5, 1975
The inad'equacy_of`Magn.ol a Avenue to handle additional
r
traffc' was mentioned. Mr. Gray, stated that the Nielsen
Freight. Lines were relocating to another site and•that the
duplex and any commercial activity would be ,required to be
processed ,through site•,design: review, and public improve-
ments could be required,at that time.
The Pu.blic.Hearing was opened. Mr. Dick Lieb, representing
Norm , Nielsen, advised' that.'Nielsen Freight Lines had
already phased out and the commercial buildings were for
rent. He also. advised that. Mr,., Nielsen. does not have any
immediate plans for developing 'the proposed 'R =M -G zoning
site.
Comm. Bond questioned:what the density on,R -M -G zoning
would'consi_st. of, since he felt the environmental considera-
tions would' depend on. what .would, ' .ultimately `be developed.
Mr.. Gray replied that that EDP would be the overriding
document regarding 'the density, and. it indicated planned
residential at a maximum. of, 6 units �p.er acre for the site..
He added that this site. would have -to be balanced with'
adjaceiit uses', .which were-in the range , of 10: to 15 units
per acre.
Comm. .Bond '°asked Mr. `Lieb what the =reaction was to the sug
gest on by'the S'onoma.County 'Water Agency regarding retaining.
the creek...in its natural,sta,te. Mr. Lieb replied that Mr. •
Nielsen favored that concept., and rough plans, had been drafted
takin - 'the natural statei.o the.creek into consideration.
He further advised that. the plans' had not- been submitted
since it was not intended to develop the :entire site in the
immediate future: Discussion f ollowed'regard-ng'the.Sonoma.
County'Wat'er Agency's requirements and the responsibility
involved. Mr. Gray informed .the. Commission he would inquire
regarding the current status of the " cr -eek proje_ct.,.
.No other comments were' offered from the! audience and the
P'ubl'ic Hearing was closed.
Comm., Waters made a motion.to direct the Director of Commu-
n ty'Development to prepare and, post a, Negative Declaration
for 'the project. The motion was seconded by Comm. Horciza.
AYES' 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2
WASHINGTON PROFESSIONAL Mr: ,Gray briefly explained the , proposed project involving, ; a pro
PARK SITE DESIGN REVIEW fessional office complex to be,'located at the southeast corner of
& REVISED TRAFFIC AND East Washington Street and Ely.Blvd: South.. He also explained'
ECONOMIC ANALYSI`S'i that additional.expansion in the floor area, had been. requested
for economic reasons, and it was because of this requested
expansion:- that:revised traffic and economic analysis data had
-4
-5-
Q ,
Petaluma` City,
.Planning Commission Minute &, April 15,' 1975
been - requested: Upon review of the revised traffic analysis, the
City Engifteet,7 had advised that:no. significant change in traffic
would result: *It,was'also noted. tha -t the proposed floor area
p j . The
ex pan would. increase the rate for the. project site, '
ro ° " re displayed for the. Commission's review.
p lans for tfie project we
Lt was noted that the project.,fiad reviewed by the Architec
tural,, &.-S .Design. Review Committee, Chairman Hilligoss - advised
' 1te,
that' the' Committee had been concerned with what would be developed'
in. the first phase and also wanted- to. insure that the. landscaping
would be put.in around the', entire'perimet.er during the first
Phase Y
Mr. Dick- Lieb;, representingth(E applicant, addressed the Commission
and requested that only four 'buildings: be required in Phase I
rather, than, the .six as requested by the Architectural & ;Site Design
Review' Committee: It was h s contention that six buildings would
be too much to'put the market at one time;, and the four build-
ings he propo's;ed to build first would allow both owners of the
projectt to ,develop two buildings in:, the f.irs,t phase. `Mr, Lieb
+
clarified that the::entire perimeter landscaping' would still be
done .in the first gip' lase-, and' that the - bicycle path could also be
accomplished. Mr� `ad, sed that the land would have to be
subdivided. so that each unit would. -be an independent unit, and
that subdivision would have to b,e accomplished when the first unit
•
was constructed.
Condition-ft relating to the.ratio.of medical and professional
office floor areas, was questioned,,. Mr. Gray stated that the
development would be kept to 45,600 square feet of medical office
area,, since any additional medical "office area would necessitate
additional' parking. Mt.'.. -Gray also advi °sed that at his request
'
low j�roflesgns.'had been submitted to 'replace the originally
proposed, 20 'foot high sign,,
!
Comm.. Mattei 'stated. he. felt- the developer should be allowed 'to.
4
build in an orderly-economic pattern. Discussion followed and
Mr;. Gray recommended that; Condliti_on ' 613 be changed as follows: .
"No ;less,. than, our buildings shall be designated as Phase I
:f
constructions' A development schedule -shall be submitted to the
Directorao.f 'Community Development f:or the entire project- for
approval, by the, Planning, Commission." The Commission. concurred'
with-this recommendation'.
Clarification was given that ,th&.bike path proposed was part of
the. official bike path �of; the city and that offsite improvements
of curb, gutter, sidewalk and bicycle path would be required in
the first phase development: Discussion`followed regarding
the colois of the buildings, Chairman Hi stated it had
'been dis.cussed-at ,the, & Site Design_ Review
Committee. meeting and had' been determined :to use varying earthen
•
tones for .the to provide some variation in colors.
-5-
v
Petaluma 'City Planning Commission Minutes,- April 15, 19,75
Comm. Hor-ci.za made,.a motion to .amend the, traf tic. and economic
ayalysis sections of the :EIR .to provide •Ffor- the increased
.expansion of floor area. Comm. Waters seconded the motion.
Mr. Gray advised that the. Traffic Committee had met after-
noon and recommended that parking be eliminated 10-feet on each
side�pf the driveways to maintain.p.roper sight distance. They
also recommended that the,Planning Commission reserve the right
to restrict traffic to a right -hand turn only onto. Kentucky
Street.
It was noted that, .in.responseto the traffic analysis p.r,e,pared
for this project:,,, that the landscaped median in the parking
area would be eliminated and the proposed landscaped area to the
west...o the building, would be.expanded.
Parking was discussed and Mr. Boehlje advised that the .require-
ment'f:or-elimination, of parking 10 feet on each side of the
driveways would only result in one .additional parking- space
being eliminated.
Comm, Waters made...a.. motion , to approve the•site design with
conditions: .of ap,proval,Eas recommended by the Architectural & Site
Design Review'Commi;ttee ; and'.Traff'ic Committee. The motion was
_•.•seconded by Comm". Bond.
AYES' 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2
M
AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT. 2
Comm. Hor-c to made a,.motion.to approve the site design with
conditions of approval as. recommended by ,the staff and the
.Architectural .& Site Design Review Committee to include _tYe
revised Condition #13. Comm. Bond seconded the 'motion with
reservations.regarding,Coiidit #12 to provide a variety of
earthen', 'tones .
AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT' 2
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
Revised site.plans .for the proposed Northern California Savings
SAVINGS &. LOAN
. &, Loan Association building to be 'located at 101 Western Avenue
ASSOCIATION - SITE
were ; shown. -to the Commission -_, Mr: Gray advised that the architect
DESIGN REVIEW:
was not able to be 'present this evening,, but had requested a
continuance -if. any quest arose that the 'staff could not answer,.
The Commission was'informe'd that the exterior material had been
changed to brick veneer. and the diagonal ' roof changed to .a low
profile treatment. -
The Architectural &Site. Design Review had reviewed
the revised site,plan and:recommended it be approved as 'Exhibit �.
"A" subj:ec -t to conditions•of approval as stated in their report
•dated April 15,, 197'5.
Mr. Gray advised that the. Traffic Committee had met after-
noon and recommended that parking be eliminated 10-feet on each
side�pf the driveways to maintain.p.roper sight distance. They
also recommended that the,Planning Commission reserve the right
to restrict traffic to a right -hand turn only onto. Kentucky
Street.
It was noted that, .in.responseto the traffic analysis p.r,e,pared
for this project:,,, that the landscaped median in the parking
area would be eliminated and the proposed landscaped area to the
west...o the building, would be.expanded.
Parking was discussed and Mr. Boehlje advised that the .require-
ment'f:or-elimination, of parking 10 feet on each side of the
driveways would only result in one .additional parking- space
being eliminated.
Comm, Waters made...a.. motion , to approve the•site design with
conditions: .of ap,proval,Eas recommended by the Architectural & Site
Design Review'Commi;ttee ; and'.Traff'ic Committee. The motion was
_•.•seconded by Comm". Bond.
AYES' 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2
M
Petaluma City Planning Commission ';;NinuEds I-Ap
il :,15, . 19 75x' �
CITY%-�COUNCILI Consi j.o fijLAFCMs &-kVy -,v P
• ,_Cbu t 1 1anfiing Policy Committee
REFERRAL: recommendations on the definit.i.b is Urban and What is
Rural":
[Mr. - : *Gk t .-heCII iorf,that input had been requested
i by. ,Policy„ „; Committee with regard to
arriving at,a basic deftni "What is Urban and What is
fid'ii - t '
r ^!s'�The_-Cityldoti pttei - that: th Planning Commission
k6 i
§h611llrd'T, _v. w= 'pape "resented-.Iby the Committee and make a
p
f: befo,'re-',t-b.eJC6unc-iil on the matter. Mr.
-. asked the Commission to
`i'8ons'Id6 r�_:;ffhe d6finitio of n1the ','SiJheres of Influence” and
�bE�t-afige' ;ti-me.zthis, it would be discussed
".": J'next meeYing`
+rc
Mr. Dave. Dorfman, Executive Of ficer of LAUD, addressed the
vit omml s s ion. J adv. 9 ing>- them I:; the,; Blanning Policy Committee- of
LAFM-Iha&) taken' oft i the t o- i ev6t lua t e alternative definitions,
E�-.toers 6 E f6r,th.=.their for land use in Sonoma County,
and to. rec-ommend, aiw set of.,def ini t ions and implementa-
tion st-rategies. Each city was .then asked to review the paper
Prepared B.Y_':the PPC dnd,-to, comments regarding the
goal,s . .rela ting , t , o _. land uses life styles. and economic realities
and a definition ' of urban' and iYial[, their implications
f , rE -0Pr:fo'r Iand'ijs6.-. Sonomd,
• - i'Mt.. , Dorfman briefly reviewed;; the goals identified. He then
b rief I reviewed the four a definitions discussed by
the PPC an the resulting alternative, which encompassed
the merits of the first. four. alternatives,since they were all
fouftd to ,be ,somewhat wanting ..
hevC
- it ommIs sIbn -
te J. :DorfmA-n([a&ris6d that after the responses ;
'obtdd�n - i
wet ed edif forward a recommenda-
cIt county, Mr. Dorfman '
v tion� i6sco the. d I
-t deqdts"tedtj thea,C buimis s1in " sr domqefit , ori:thow they felt the goals
i. with-where they wanted Petaluma
t'o ;g 0
ray-lstated recommended Alternative #5,
sinceihe�f'eilt"U policies, of the City
of Petaluma.
Comm., Mattei qpestioned..how.'Alterna #5 pertained. to.
,, that,.the; policies stated-'on p'age 10
of the paper were consistent with t= he'I City',s polic1es. as stated
in the General Plaft•and, EDP,. Re further explained that, the
theory was. that no new,c ' ities� should be.f ' ormed, but future
urbanIzation, should be- a by the existing u'r areas.
Mr =r. DQrIfm' �ed that ;paragraph 2b on page .1l pertained to
advis
I. Pe,taluma. . " .He - also 'stated that -- the transitional desiRnation was
meant as a permanent buffer between dgr,-Icultu'ral . and urban uses.
-7-
V
Petaluma City. Planning Commission Minutes, April 15, 1975'
Mr. Gray 'stated there would be two ways to implement the new
definition:
1) It co,iild , be - . required .. that _ once a-. sphere of influence is
established,around.the city that all matters shall be
referred to the sphere of influence that it is in, or
2) Ah areawide:Plann ng Commission,could,be established within
the area of the sphere of influence_ of the city. That
Commission. would consist.of. present Planning Commission
members plus two members from the un= incorporated areas out-
..side..of the city. All matters would be acted' on by that
Commission and appeals would be made to the appropriate
legislative body. This procedure would' provide a unified
policy plan and.representation for the area.
Comm. Waters made a motion to concur with the.four goals identi-
fied in the PPC paper ,presented as well as the definition of
"rural" and "urban" as stated in Alternative #5. The motion was
seconded by Comm. Bond.
AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2
CQMMISSIONER''S Mr. Gray requested that each of the-Commis look at the
REPORTS - /REQUESTS: batch plant currently'being constructed by S.anta,.Fe Pomeroy.
He also advised thaw annexation procedures were being pursued
with that company.
Comm,, Bond questioned .the:seismic,findings: regarding the Mill-
inester property alternate hospital site. Mr. Gray replied
that the. geologist. had ;felt that the site, was not safe for
hospital, construction from a ;seismic standpoint. He also
clarified that ..the.reports appear to be-accurate and the City's
General Plan and EDP would have, to be modified accordingly.
Mr. Gray informed the Commission that.the staff report regarding
the•Troudy.Lane site would hopefully be' completed within two
weeks.
ADJOURNMENT:
There.being.,no further business, the meeting adj'ourned at
10:22 p'.m. ,
Chairman