HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/02/1975J � @ ' ll g � I1 ur ,
I' .
,1 I
n1a W (u t
V a�l -
F_' 'A G E N .D .A
'P,-ETALUMA CITY PLANNING, COMMI'SS.ION ` DECEMBENR 2, 1975
h REGULAR MEETING 7 30.4) M;.
CITY COUNCIL 'CHAMBERS, ',CITY �HALL�� �PETALUMA',.'CALIFORNIA
,. I il ��1V �" G �V hw 1�
h 1 II I � � ip
111
E II 1 THE `FLAG,:
IW I PLEDGE A LLEGIANCE ,
I t,� u
'S LL Bond, I Ho,rciza; p,
1 f II �l
I II
Wa'ter's W g
Heady H lliglI a u _ Po p
Comml Bo , �.
n ROLL, .. I, I �
d r
STAFF: Dennis Boehlj,e, Planning- Director
. t _
PPR V
AL OF MINUTES
" n
�II r� � � �_.,. � ._... I n t G tl• -.Ix "Cu' , uli ' 1� , . r � � -
U II I r i d
�CORRESPONDENCE �x �tl
p
r, rl `II� .II . VII' . tl,' 1 1 1li6llu� r
I fi „
I, .r 0 ImP 1 IG ' tall
i ' o.
•
deraton lof' an-amendment
! � I � ! ZONING ORDINANCE NO:� Continua io .
1 -072 N.C.S.• „AMENDMENT: 0r,diriance Section 20'
,. I '- n, of con the Zoning
,' � _ 300,. ;relating to parking''r;equireinent,
I -
QANTAS' DEUEtOPMENT CORD Contifi a,tion of consid eration of the Final` Environmental,_
r HEIR FOR MILLMEISTER4 Impact„ Repo submitted 'by' Del Davi's &, .Associates, Incl ,
X 1 1 OPERTY CO„ TINUA : d insofar as r lts l com ' 1 ,!
I l �� �d pR Commn compliance with State guide "
10 'I hl l N NCE • � �G 11 p
f 1 111 ion i
11 �, �r I, I f s four tl b
I I let '�� I I
r "' line he Planned u ni District proposed by
4 V ' r I I ll y ' 1 r r
antas Develro ment Cor oration„ fpr the , Xi ITm
eistr e r,o ert'
Q P P� �r P, ' P ,y
r
orth 'McDowell� !'
0
c t n
a e o
,a ra
a
MR- & MRS MICHAEL. s Consideration of.a•varianc'e. request by Mr.. & Mrs Michael,
DUNAWAY VARIANCES Dunaway to allow a reduction in- the rear yard f�r,om 20, feet
V6 -75;: 'to 7 feet 6 inches for the' con.s;truction of •a f - 'amity room.
add lio
I .
n
I
I I, ^' I I' "�MA'RGARET L l FL & a Consideratilo ° p
n of an ap licationP by Margaret L Flud and'
J U I �9
� I I o c tl
„ ficate'of public onvenience
vWILLIAM' D F'LUD °I l and l nec'eDsity u tof au'thocerti p g
"CFIAE, "l P U BLIC �,.�,r +h, III ;;;..„ �„ 1�II 1 t raze q�'� t
4,1,01 ERTICT
t
" ENCE.� I 1 4 o�f��
WALTER ` o eratin the. 'ltaxic'ab in!� the��:C�,t Pe, aLuma..
I. CONUENh' "�� ' ' -
� � r a
p g; I
Re-quest b Mx W
KIECKHEFER C O,: •q y alter. KiecIklefer f 1
r a 2; -m me onth a
- REQUEST' FOR TIME, extension of 197 the. <C = `zonin'g which became e_ffectzve 'bn-
EXTENSION OF.0 -H JU1y'31 4, for his property ; on the nor,thwesiter1y corner
ZONING: I of Lakeville and 'E, Washington Streets.
I!�� . II "�
i
�1, MCNEAR "`PENINSULAR alua n. th
t;ioo '
: f e" Env
(PROPOSED PUR °' VII �• !� Eue� proposed purchas ° e of th, RiE Impac'enQinsul„aonnaire ioln
N V i � f
EIQ EVALUATION I' th
e Mc
Near P
ADJOURNMENT'
I .
"
j
1 1
II � I �• li�
4 h
W
l
I N' Jf'IT E' =S_
�u
Iri al I
` ING CbMMISSION 2, 19 75
DECEMBER
*REGU ETALUMA CIT PL'ANN M.
MEETING ' :30 .M
CITY COUNCIL - CHAMBERS CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
PRESENT:
r ,
ABSENT;:
APP
IAL OF MINUTES' The minutes of`.November 18,, 1975',, were approved as submitted.
ZONING Chairman`Horciza reminded the. that the Public Hearing
NO'. '1072' N.C.!S. to consider the proposed' `Zoning Ordinance amendment had been
AMENDMENT: held 'on November'18, 1915, 'and no adverse 'comments had been
voiced "by `they ,audie.nce.
M r. Tart briefl
ed reviewed •the proposed change to the require -
h
m parking. spaces n residential areas.
mm. `Wrigh;t moved' to recommend' the..ad.option of the proposed
amendme'nt' Section -20 -300 of Z&iing Ordinance No. N.C.S.
to the City'Council. The.motion'was seconded by Comm. Popp.
s
'. AYES 6 NOES 1 ABSENT 0
F g g rac of the`report dated November 26,
QANTAS DEVELOPMENT ' Mr I Tarr briefl reviewed' -the staff
CORP. - EIR FOR 1975, ^'re 'ardl " ' ' accu' y Final- Draft EIR prepared by
I MIL'LMEISTER PROPERTY Del Davis •& Associates for' the jQantas Development Corporation
' '
CONTINUANCE ,. Itawasathe' mmendation - t o , e stated on North McDowell Blvd.
mmunity ' " 'e loc a
reco`mnendto the Ci;tyCounci.l that' tiff that the Commission
reco
he subject EIR be cer ified
+as having been completed in compliance with State and local
gid'dlifies and - that the 'information therein had been reviewed.
. u
`Chairman Hor asked Mr. Del Davis if he agreed with the minor
changes as" indicated in the-staff report. Mr. Davis replied.
t'h:at they were acceptable to hl
I
a
� ,
II ion. .of ! "the l' was uestioned. Mr.
�2he l ocat� y emits boundar Y q
�
I t. th en d have to be prezoned and
P a P Y
th Cit
to
anne�re
annex to the'''' y,. but t considered contiguous
h
growth since „it is bounded .on three 'sides by the City limits.
'
Com Hll'.g ossr questioned `the "Impacts" section located on page
m. ''
i
IV. 10 ol: the EIR`, lines 25 `and 26 .relating to wind direction
' information for-the site. Mr. Davis replied that a "'rose" is
the. 'technical' term 'of a diagram that meteorologists draw up
which ifndi' ate's the frequency of wind blowing from different
dire: "tions., ' He further ' advise:d" that the Santa Rosa wind rose is
actu 11YI the only recognized, wind rose in this area that is
avail'abr1& however-, it had to be modified rather extensively
JI
R
Petaluma City Planning
Commission Minutes; D'ec.ember;2, 1975
climatic pattern' n this area
b "se of the slightly di Meach'am
which was a ressli the°fferen't
Hill inter see;t ion .and also
because of the n•fluence,'- of the Bay,
Comm: Popp moved 'to recommend' to the City' Council, that the Final
Draft EIR for the Qantas. Development; Corporatlion, Planned Com-
munity District be certified a's having been completed in :com-
pliance with State and local',,guidelines °and that the information
therein had been reviewed. 'The motion was seconded by Cgmm.
AYES 6 NOES. 0. ABSENT 0
Comm. 'Wa .er . questioned what the next, step in this °proj`ec would
be.: Mr.. .Tarr. replied that, the : Commission would consider the
,p•rezon ng : application after the City :Council certified the EIR.
Mr. Jon Joslyn,, Qantas Development Corporation, stated that he
hoped to be back i:n approximat-ely a month with a request ;for
prezoning -and annexation.
MR. & MRS. MICHAEL
Mr. Tarr br.i.efl explained the re uest b , Mr. & Mrs.. Mich ael
DUNAWAY , - ,VARIANCE _
Dunaway to _.allow a reduction in the rear yard from 20 fee t: to 7
V6 -7'5:
feet, 6; inches f :or the construction of a.'fam>_ly ,room_addition.
He then reviewed the findings• necessary to grant a variance..
,, • `: ; . ,
r•Comm. _ Bond ,stated that he felt the third ;finding relating to not
constituting a_ special ' R rivile of` the recipient not enjoyed by
his neighbors could, be made since, the applicant's neighbor 'had
been gx�ant.p a similar variance. He therefore contended, that
granting of '•the variance would not constitute a !special pri-
vilege for 'the applicant ,Mr. Tarr replied that a Variance_ is
something in additz:on to the substantial proper -ty rights. Comm.
Bond stated that he understood the tl eory. that the variance was
separate, but the practical fact of` the. matter was, that the
precedent had,been set and,the .efore.;weighed heavily in this
case,, and he,did not feel .a privilege afforded to.a neighbor
:.
should' be denied to,;the individual making,. "the request. Mr. Tars
,.•
advised that -there had been changes =in the Zoning, Ordinance
since the variance, had .been, ; granted in '196.9'. Comm; Bond replied.
that he would still :attempt to claim the =same property rights as
. r
his neighbor,. Comm,. Popp voiced his agreement :that ;.granting of
the variance • would, not, constitute „a special privilege f.or•'the
property.
Comm Hilligoss. questioned the positioning of' the front and side•
yards and ,their requirements.. Mr. Tarr replied that the, front
yard., faced on Elm Drive and . had a 22,' -foot front' yard setback
..
while; the : ord'inance called " 25 `f.eet,. and the side yard facing
c
on, Magnolia ' had,a 24 -f o where a, minimum of 15 feet is
required. Comm. Hill R6, whether such a corner 1'ot
•,
could therefore be 'considered as an odd,-lo . Mr., Tarr replied,
:that tact was. one of •the applicant'& contentions; however; the -
r
'Petaluma City Cityi Commission Minute's, D'eaeember 2, ;1975,,
corner' lot iris,, usualJly.a larger lot .arid inr-this case 'is wider.
C PP ', the be
t Mr. 8
the
considered.a Tarr -�adv ed'that substacould
_ __.. _ . _ substan
.-. _ p .
lot :'depth' s expetienced by everyone Firi that subdivision, and
I
therefore ''.i's not< a `'peculiar or -u.nu.sual 4 cond'ition inherent in
just that particular °property:.,�Comm...Bond "!stated it could be
considered a technical variance to start with, since it at least
ivesiori o" change from.the standard lot size
constituted a'd r r a
prescr- ibed ".�by the zoning. "��, Mr. �;Tarr replied that would be true
'
l in prior to the minimum
uness this subdiv.isliohi we
100 -foot lot�depthure "quirementnt
Comm Waters questioned what was constructed on they. operty to
the west.. The applicant, Michael Dunaway; indicated where a.
q .
single- family' dwelling was located to the rear of his property •
and further expl,ained*h s reasons for requesting a variance.
Comm. "Popp'stated that.a covered- p.atio.hdd originally been
located'• ''the'same location, as, the .requested addition.
Comm ;Head , "moved to grant the requested variance and the motion
was seconded lby ''qomm.` 'Popp.
Comm ",Wrigli't stated he was sympathetic to the applicant's re-
questj but fel' 'the Commission 'should `be aware that ,.the granting
p,
of this variance. would set a precede'nt'-for others on this street.
p
Comm. 'Head replied he did not believe this was so, since others
must also.,indi cate:a hardship. 'Mt Tarr reminded the Commission
that the. findings to, be made did not, consider personal, ;family
;or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and'
neighboring violations as hardships JTus'tifying a variance.
AYES 7 NOES 0 "'ABSENT 0>
m
,
MAR
G IAM�D . ,FLUDD
Comm Bond stated th in view of the absence of the applicant's,
" 'feel
"., -&
WILL
he$did; not "`it was, ate to consider this application.
�. appropriate
a Pp P
. o� .: , ,::
past, that if' the ,applican is are not
CERTIFICATE OF�PUBLIC�, He reiterated his as
CAONVENIENCE
,p
should be tabled or continued until
reser
present.
s n m. eh as they are present.
Comm. Popp moved to continue.the consideration of the subject
application until the applicants could be present. The motion
was_ seconded by Comm., Head.
AYES 7 NOES 0' ABSENT 0
Chairman'Horciza tequ'ested the 'staff to contact the applicants .
and advise ahem that the - Commission felt their presence is
a liear t!o ,discuss the ap;plica: 1 ., M
� n Pp ess ants „would be notified that�hr. Tarr replied Ghat the
•
eir application`�would;be
considered ion December 16, 1975,; and', that their pres'enc'e would
be reques,te;d.
-3
Petaluma. City Planning
Commission Minutees,.December 2, 1975, .
Comm. Head stated. he -felt the : rule's and regulations 'of ."the
Commission should „be modified-. accordingly,'; since a new precedent
was - being set%, : 'A 'brief dispuss followe_d,,, after. which the
Commission determined tro ;go on=. record to require applicants to.
be present when, they have, a 'request .before the Comiriission as a
matt!er'• of policy... '
-:,Comm, .Wright stated he felt .the .Police should also be
present in '`this instance;:. and -Comm... Bond agreed;: .
WALTER KIECKHEFER
Mr. 'Tarr briefly reviewed the request by Walter, Keekhef for a
COMPANY - ' REQU'EST
12 7month time extension of the C -H, zoning for property located
FOR TIME''EXTENSI'ON
at hakeville and East. Washington - Streets.'iComm. Bond stated
OF .0 -H ZONING:
that once ;again ahe,. -was not present and questioned
..:
whether the request ;should be, considered ' Tarr advised that
"he "had recewe;d 'a call from Mr: K'eckhef`er's Secretary saying
that he could not attend, but that 'he would tray 'to s'end'someone
else from his :firm,.
.
Comm; Wright ,stated he,' did not -feel that in this `particular
instance questions of Mr. Kieckhefer•.would • be as necessary as in
the prior application, .of ':Mr. & Mrs. Flud 'and he felt . ; some -
action should be taken on the time extensi'on..reques,t .thin evening.
Comm-' Head to grant the, request for a'l2 -month time exten-
sion of the C -H zoning- for the 'subj property. Comm. Hilligos's .•
asked 'if Mr: Kleckhef'er' could appeal ' the ;decision of th'e' 'Commis;-
sion if the. request was' denied;: Mr Tarr= replied that . a denial
could be appgdled to - the Council.' He'further,;advised that
the ap,p.licant had `submitted tentative plans And had two tenants
lined' up, but "needed a few additional tenants 'before he could
submit firm plans. The motion was seconded 'by Comm. Waters..
Comm: Bond.commented on ;the amount of COEMerc ally zoned,pro-
perty currently no.t' being utilized, and expressed his reluctance;
at granting rontinu'ances - without justification.,' Cbmm.. Hilligoss
and Wright, expressed their: agreement., but, bo`t'h felt that” this' t.
i t h ld b` min °real zoned rather thane 'revertin
MCNEAR PENINSULA.
PROPOSED PURCHASE - EIQ EVALUATION:;
,,par, cu
g
back to its former'M -L zoning.. .
• NOES l 'ABSENT' . 0
- AYES 6 ,
(Comm. •Bond voted' "No" since the app'licant''was not present,.
Comm.. Pop ` and. Waters voiced their agreem_'ent with Comm._ Bond,
- that thea lican t should .d' be present,. but 'voted in the .affirmative.. ) '
'Mr. Tarr explained the own'ershiR'of the lands involved in the
proposed purchase- of °the McNear Peninsula :and briefly' reviewed
the s;,taff report..
Comm, Head ref "erred to, the 'rec- ommenddtion of'. the °staff: for the
preparation of: a Negative Declaration and ques why,. the.
-4-
Petaluma City 'Planning 'Commission - Minutes, December.,2., .19'7'5
Comm. Bond •asked for an explanation-, of the' Act that required the
EIQ-evaluat on before the purchase of' land'. Mr. Raymond explained
the 9p,plicati6d process by advising ;that'the 1974 State Park
-5-
r
Ci.ty,was no,t required to, go through the -same amount of "garbage"
r
that a. developer is..requir.ed to. He: voiced his concern over the'.
Commi, "scion° ' a Negative Declaration at this time rather
^, makin
q that a future I �e in
a the lR eninsu
p e gh
fact s that pe ulahco.uldt e . I
t ater� not be' dev elo and th
I r
i
Mr
y he pro ert Tarr replied that
III
n
there °are oedevelo m lth p t ','the, Ares ent time from which to
p ° ent lans a
A
lu.. o Head
r s an'n • Y
prepare � must. ha e
�
.,
sor�.e ' -idea: what the �to� ido ; pen %nsu <la.. Comm.
Y
r ,.I, r17u�1 l TAM
Ho rcl -za therefor'e cal_ led, upon I Jim Raymond,,. Recreation Director,
to outline. the p;;lansfor the .prop
. „, .Ir
Mr ,Raymond J nformed the Commission that f;or strc .planning.
:purposes it is ,difficult : to, say° exactly what would be. done with
the pro,pert, ,. He. explained that the funds: for purchase would. be
obtained from, the. 1974 ,State ,P.ar,k Bond .Act Proposition 1,, and
in the �setting`,of, priorities ander..this Act the Recreation
Commission wanted. to. find some' land in they central area that
could be utilized b thei community arid; be alccessible for both
the' east .and west portions, of.,, the city:, Mr., Raymond stated', that
the peninsula was corirsidered fo r -, a passive' area , and uses would
_
as b � na
include activat e e
jrogging, I runnings 1c ch
gn acc'e t,q t
p in access�to th river for youngsters
-
7 l• I, d III
ct i vi
and quasi commercial la �ies dealing with the water
suchl
�a' �I I �
fu
s Bailin I�rlesson H rther adv�ced t hat it was not the
�r Y J'
intent of the 'Recreation. Coe
mmission to ut a large co
p in
�^.
��.
center, since they, were loo ,� i.nsu primarily
king at the,pen> la. rimarily for
I. y tivities.
open,, s ace, and communit s ac
,P. , ,. , ._
of the .
The Icost� p roperty 'was uestion
p p y q ed arid` Mr.: Raymond advised
that negotiations could not` be, comple.'ted' until the State
i the
legislature through -its legislative process sells the bonds for
the 'project and ;gives its approval,: He.:added' that the legis-
lature hays approved $ for the City of Petaluma. Comm.
Head questioned. if the State would not require an ETR before.
approving. 'the, fundsr,for the purchase.., .Mr.•:. Raymond replied' that
the evaluation of fhe EIQ -was. su'fficent,, ,since the application.
states acquisition only, and that is what the ETQ is based uporr,-
Hel advised :that •future development would have to have further
,
environmental rev ew4
J
C ' ' r
Mh bcai.
omm Hea stated that re entl the, County and City` are drawing
, . I p� s y ,
�I
f d ,
everiue ro ,,
this "ert
r' rom tp p y ,:e se, it. is„ privately owned, and. if
W
II .. . �
�I. the City Ipur- chased , the property they would no longer benefit,
from ,the land since wound, cease rto. be revenue producing:
l it
Comm.,. HT, lligoss replied that l the City Council has already "de-
c ded',up�oh, the purchase of� the McNear,�4Peni�nsula as- a prior ity
p f'or the 1974 State Bond _Act, and the. `Commission is only •d -is=
cussing the,.EIQ, not the actual, purchase.
Comm. Bond •asked for an explanation-, of the' Act that required the
EIQ-evaluat on before the purchase of' land'. Mr. Raymond explained
the 9p,plicati6d process by advising ;that'the 1974 State Park
-5-
r
. a
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes',- - D`e'cember' 2, 19.75
Bond. Act was a 10 % gr -ant` coming back to the city which is
alloca'te'd~ on a population basis,,' the' City's share 'being $122,907.
Prior 'to th:e ap:plicat -ion `'being `submitt°ed 'the; project, •mus't be
forwarded to 'the area clear_inglouse f -or approval_ stating that- it
meets' the criteria o'f " State Park Bond Ac ,,. 'This submittal
•must also. 'indicate: environmental review has been completed or,is
to be. comp 'eted' `and whenand' °` is -part of the process that must
be, completed :before: any •a'l`location - of' money can, occur. The
clearinghouse th en, e Voul.d give the City.approval, stating that
the pr "off ect "' mee't's the criteria 'for the State 'Park Bond Act, and
it is forwarded to the Se ate C1.earnghou_se and! to 'th_e State
Department of' . Parks & Recreat Mr.. Raymond 'advised that the
State` ;Department of 'Parks & ' Recreation had..alreeady observed the
"
p;roj.ectr and adv=ised that ail that was' needed now was the envi.-
ronmerital .review: The City could then 'negotiat °e„ with the p,ro-
"perty owners when the State .gives 'the approval„ for the funding
= r Comm,: Bond :asked if there was A of. requiring, an EIR
at a. later time when plans ;are more specific,; Mr. Raymond,
s';tated. that was 'correct„ since' further environmental review
would be accomplished 'in' the design process.
` Comm. Head questioned: why the funds. could. ',not be utilized for
development o.f ,,l'and the 'City' `already °o."wned <. ;Mr. 'Raymond, replied
tfiat•the funding"prigtity had been discus s during :many "public
g the Recreation. _ Comm's'sion, and the Cit Count -1 had
reaf firmed ithis: ` urcl ase of
p park land as a •priority. He; further
-
advised that the purpose of the State Park .Bond Act is, to find
land, and purchase 'it for, the future and the Recreation Com-
` mission had 'therefore- decided; on this project;.
ct the Planning .bL t. o
Comm. Wright moved to. dire prepare
g
and* post
t 'a Negative. ,Declaration for the project -. Comm. Hilligoss
seconded the mo_tkon.
Mr. ` Dean Mer;rick;, 'a, member' of 'the :audience;, exp_res;sed his con-
, .. ..,
tern •about• the City's: actions li spending the taxpayers 'money.
He also expressed his c oncern •about.the possible commercial_
izaton of the river and - annoyance over what. lie .felt was the
general' con'c`ens.us of the'. 'City' that the wildlife: on the. peninsula
was more important than the estuaries of the, Petaluma River,
which he fpit should 'be t , .he. main, concern. Mr- Merrick„ was
assured by members of the Commi's'sion that '.the :goal of the 'pro-
j.ect was to retain the pen= insu -la in its ' "natural state as much as
possible • for- the future res,id'ents ''and to protect the river.,-and
therefbr.e 'the City's .goals were' y in accord• with what, he wished."
Mr: Raymond a'1sg staged that "when the planning ;f,or, the park
' actually starts it will be a' park, ;planned " by the, community,, and
the ;Re_creat`ion Commission will have public hearings to obtain "
ideas from the pubic and get. them' involved,.
. Comm. `Head__ stated he.• -felt the acquisition, -o,f the proposed "pa'rk °
land should, be a ballot issue before the ;,furids are expended,, so'
chat the money,-could ber,de,ferred ,to - some other project if the
park proves. to: be a dead issue like the propos'e'd new hospital.: .
-6-
. ,
,I
-7-
u"
°fir Petal uma
it " Minutes December 2 1975
C _.�.. � . .�
I'
.-
Ire ', F 4 � F
�^ considered irrelev,an.t to
A shor, n followe' ch wa's cons
O d
t discussi whi
I
the EI under consideration, and,l the. 'Commission was brought back
Q
to order: Th'e vote to direct the Planning Director to prepare
'
and p_ost. a 'Negative Declaration, for the acquisition of the
project wa's then taken.
AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0
Comm, Waters questioned whether some: action had been taken to
annex Santa File Pomeroy in ty to the Ci `limits. Comm. Hlligoss
..
advised that there h some +off g otiatons , a leer, had been
b-een
orwa•r e to the c om an s main: e, and the City was await-
ing a reply °
a
( ADJOURNMENT
i ,I
u l , sl
There no further business , meeting adjourned at 9:08
I
P.M.
,I
-7-