Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/05/1974A G E N D A PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 1974 ECULAR MEETING 7-30 P.M. ITY CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO : THE, FLAG ,ROLL. CALL: Comm. Balshaw Bellovich Hilligoss Mattei Popp Waters Bond' STAFF: Frank B. Gray, Director of commuhIty Development APPROVAL OF MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE AtQERWOOD SUBDIVISION Consideration o the FirTAI MAP for the Alderwood - FINAL MAP: 'Subdivi:sion '(f6rmerly',Sun 'Terrace -Park) submitted. by U..S. Equiti D'evel,opment Corp., to be liocAted-at, the .i 0 of Ely Road and East 'Washington Street. C6NDIOTTI ENTERPRISES; , Compliance with-Section 19-9. - Findings, of INC., PUD. _ FINDINGS'.:. 2o#�_ing ordinance No. 1072 NX.S., relative to Cdnd:io Entdrprises.,, Inc,. PUD, located in the "Ile 'Street and Sunnyslope�'RoAd area,. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 1) Morthbay� Saving."s'l LoAn,. Consider- , QUESTIONNAIRE. ation' of An,EIQ'fok Notthbay SaVTngs t Loan EVALUATIONS:' Association l s - propose4l new..site in the area bordered by "C" Street,, 4th Street and Peta-luma B•vd.. South. 2) Connolly Development: Public. Hearing-to consider the EIQ relative to Con,n Pavelop- rezoning Application from R-1-6,500 to a. PUD, District for- Approximately 7. acre's on the - east slide of e ,0'l Freeway betwen Lindberg.. Lane _and 'the. southerly terminus of Stu Drive. ,PG&E - SITEi-DESIGN Consideration bf the proposed site design submitted REVIEW: by PG& repair shop addition to their - exist Ing service center on Corona Road near McDowell Blvd. North. C MENDMENT TO PLANNING Consid'eration of resolution amending the Planning OMMISSION BY-LAWSt Commission By-laws td include the consent calendar provision. ADJOURN A D D EN D U M T 0 A G E N D A — — — — — — — — — — PLANNING CODPUAISSION -MEETING F-EBRUARY 5 ;1 1974 7-:3.0 P.M. KAMPGROUND9.OF AMERICA Site design consideration for a proposed KOA SITE DESIGN REVIEW site to be located at the northwest corner of COW4ITTEE'REPORT: Rain'sville Road and Stony Point Road. I *-- I 71 NI I - N U T E S PETALUMACITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 1974 Ah �REQULAR, MEETING 7:30 P.M. 1 W - dITY'COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA .PRESENT - Comm. Balshaw,-Hilligoss, Mattei, Popp, Waters, Bond 'ABSENT: Comm. Bellovich ,STAFF: -Frank B. Gray, Director of Community Development -AP.PROVA,L MINUTES: ' minutes of January 15, 1974 were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE: Sonoma County Referral - Mr. Gray advised the Commission.that the Sonoma County Board of .Zoning Adjustments will consider the application :of Jack Withington to renew a use permit to allow a meat cutting operation at 3170 Eastman Lane in a County "U" UnclAssified District. The staff report was read which indicated no opposition to the requested renewal. A brief discussion followed and Comm. Popp made a motion to direct the staff to forward a letter indicating no opposition to the requested renewal and Comm. Balshaw seconded.the motion® AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 ALPERWOOD SUBDIVISION Letters hadbee.n written to the Commission by FINAL MAP: the City Engineer and the Director of Community Development stating that all conditions of the Subdivision ordinance, the zoning ordinance, and the conditions of approval of the Tentative Map 'ha:d met, Comm. Popp made the motion to approve the Final 'Map for Alderwood Subdivision Unit #1 and Comm. Waters seconded the motion. - AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 CONDIO Gray informed the Commission that at the INC., PUD FINDINGS: - time ResolutionZ6-73 was approved for a Planned, Unit Development the findings as required by Section 19-900 were not specifically made. It was ."therefore necessary at this time for the Planning Commission to make the specific findings which it had made by inference at the time of approval of this resolution.. . Gray then called upon .. Mr. Bill Bettinelli, attorney for Condiotti Enterprises, for further clarification. Petaltma­ Commission Minutes, February 5, 1974 Mr_- Bettinelli advised that court - action was 'brought against the City' Council requesting the court. 'to order the City Council to set aside - its ordinance ,approving the rezoning of the parcel. The.'matter was litigated and the court rendered its decision He,added the decision of the court does not specifically refer to the Planning Commission or:any of t ' he Planning Commiss activitiesin -this manner, it only requests that the City Council il take certain actions. Mr. Bettineli'i advised that the fina1_. had hot been prepared by the judge but that he would read the Judge."s, intended ' decision which was filed on December 2,,8, 1973.. This decision stated. that the "Petitioners' seek the issuance of a writ of mandate directib4the,respondent City Council to sbt,aside certain decisions made on April lfth and April 17th,1573. The April 16th meeting resulted in the passage of Ordinance 1083 N,.,C.S., which rezoned certain real property from a Planned Community District 'to ,a Plan, ned Unit Development. The April 17th meeting resulted in the passage of Resolution, No. 6212 N.C.S. which approved - Tentative Map. The petitioners' - contend - that'the April 16th action was improper becA.us;e respondent City Council purported to pass an ordinance without first having made certain specific, findings ngs required by Section 19-900 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. They further - contend that the action taken.on.April 17th ,was improper, alleging that the Environmental 'Im - Report that the City Council ,considered and-relied upon and insufficient to supply the proper ba!§ for approval. bf,.the tentative subdivision map. The court concluded that.the petitioners." first contention must'be sustained ®" Mrm Bettinelli further advised ed that after d cussing evidence':in the cas'e,the judge stated that "Accordingly, Ordinance No. 1083 N.C.S. has been found't-o have been improperly enacted without the four- specific; findings having first been. made,, and'respondent City Council is directed to take such furtherpr6bee'dingslas it may deem appropriate based upon the evidence which hass been pre'sented'or upon such further evidence as it may receive." The remainder the order upheld the action of A 'iron- - April 17th with regard to the Env- men-tal I'mpact-Report And approval of.the Tentative Map. Mr. -Gray read the findings from' ""Section 19- of the .Zoning Ordinance for the 'clarification, of Ah the Commissi and also read the findings as statedW- in the proposed resolution for consideration by -- the Commission. : .Pbtq.Luma'­ , City -Planning . Commission Minutes, February 5, 1974 A review-of the Past histo G ray the PUD rezoning I i 1 f was accomplished and Mr, ray clarified that t he resolution was approved by the Planning Commission it would then go to the City Council who would also have to make the same specific findings Mr -- Bettinel;li added that the judge wi,ll';r'e ta i n 1 jurisdiction over the matter and that either party could bring it back to the judge if there was still army question. He advised that the judge specifically stated that he has made no decision to whether the evidence that has been presented is sufficien:t to substantiate the findings and that he would not make such a decision until, and if, the findings were made. Discussion followed regarding the legality of . .approval of the proposed resolution and the wording of the resolution. It was clarified that the second pa�agr`aph of the resolution was in err 1 6 r in stating that"'the Court - did mandate that certain findings since the judge had .. directed the City Council to take such further proceedings as it may., deem appropriate based upon evidence and not "require" that the -findings be made. Chairman Bond expressed his feelings that the Commission was only correcting an error insofar -as the findings should have been made at the time of the PUD re:zbnint gand he did not feel the - Commission was adding anything but were simply clarifying what was done before by inference. He reminded the Commission that this action took place before the public outcry on the matter and not feel that the Commission should - back off now from the filling in of a legal void'.because of that reason. Chairman Bond then raised the questi6n" of tabling the issue .­until the City Attorney could be present to speak the legal aspects and the terminology of the resolution because of the reluctance of some of the Commissioners to act upon the 'resolution. Discussion followed after which Comm. Popp made - the motion to rove the resolution with the deletion of the second paragraph of the resolution . and - to pass it on to the City Council. Comm. Balshaw seconded the , motion.: Comm. Waters questioned changi.nq a resolution which had been drafted'by the City,.Attorney - and Mr. Gray advised it was his feeling that resolution was to reflect the feelings of the Commission® AYES 4 NOES 1 ABSTAIN 1 ABSENT 1 -3- Petaluma `City.' Planning" Commission Minutes, February 5', 1 Mrs. Hilligoss c her abstention stating .> ­ she had not been on the Commission at the time of the action on. this P1D re•zoni ;g and did not feel she should vote on amendment. Chairman Bond asked. Mr. 'Gray to relay to the City AttoTnb",the impotence the ;Cominissi feels when ` `-' a legal matter icomes up and he is not present to give Advi'ce as he felt the City Attorney's presence was needed this riven n_g to-render legal clarification. A reces's was ,called at 8:45 p.m. and. the meeting resumed at 8:55 p.,m ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 1) Northbay,Sawi -ngs & Loan Association Consid- QUESTIONNAIRE eration:..of.' E;IQ for Northbay Savings & Loan EVALUATIONS: Associa:tions�' proposed new site bordered by "C ';Street, 4th "Street and Petaluma Blvd. South. Mr. 'Gray. read the pertinent information from the rstaff report which indicated no negative comments and recommended the acceptance of the EIQ•. Comma .Balshaw que's't.oned the traffic.aspect with regard to the drive -:thru window and Mr_. Gray advised him of the.mlti- gating site design requirements.. C'bmm.. B;alshaw made the motion `to direct the Dir ector of Community Development to prepar and post a N'ega"t,ive Declaration fo thus project and Comm. Hilligoss; seconded the' -motion.. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 2) Connolly :Development, Inc Public Hearing to consider the 'E'IQ relative to applicant's rezoning request from R - -6,500 to a PUD_ District for approximately -7.6 acres on the east side of U.S. 1`0.1 'Freeway between Lind- berg Lane and the ,southerly terminus o Stuart Drive. -Mr, Gray presented - •the history of the site and read the pertinent EI,Q. comments from the staff report. The Public Hearing was opened 'and Mr. 'Jens Hansen, Architect.& Planner for Connolly Development, Inc. addressed the Commission. He advised that -this PUD rezoning request -4- - Petaluma City.Planning Commission Minutes, February 5, 1974 • was the result of finding a spot for the apartment building which had to be moved from the Washington Square Shopping Center, and that in order, to utilize this site the entire-parcel would have to be developed. ­Mr. Hansen further advised that if the Commission felt this apartment buildi'g would .., have an adverse environmental effect on the neighborhood it.would have to be scrapped. ..He then showed.an"overlay indicating 12 units .. pro -posed be substituted for the apartment building if. this happened. Mr._ Hansen desckibdd the layout and the streets. He- alsb -advised that a berm and 'heavy lands capsfig-,: . plus the placement of .. the carports, and garages, would serve as a : from the freeway. Chairman Bond q-estibn6dthe traffic gen- eration and Mr. IId that the proposal would-gen.erate!aboutthe same amount of traffic as'if it-were developed with single- family,unitsf which is what i�t is zoned for. Mr. Gray remarked that the City Engineer had stated that the streets were properly de- signed to handle the density. He then questioned Mr. Hansen a - s to the open space on the I - � unit " substitution and was informed 1 it was about the same as for the apartment building. Mr,,Gray advised the Commission that an tt.Rt was .only a took to aid in their decision on the rezoning and should only be required if the.Commi,ssidn felt more information was needed in order to make a decision. He also clarified that,if a Negative Declaration was made the public could still appeal to the City Council. Comm. Hilligoss questioned why 60 units were proposed for the site and Mr. Hansen replied that it.was because of the cost of development. He added that this type of development would not generate any more traffic than the conventional type proposal.® Chairman Bond asked the audience for comments. No response was given and the Public Hearing was closed. -5- Petahuma C_ity;Planning: Commission Minutes, February .5, 1974 Comm®- Balshaw, made the motion to direct the • Director of Community Development to prepare and. post a Negative Declaration for this development and Comm. Popp seconded the motion. AYES 4 NOES 2' ABSENT SITE COMMITTEEGREPORTSW 1. sere ceRcenterr near existing McDowel - a�r Blvd. North, Mr. Gray adv sed,that the Site Des Review Committee had recommended approval and tha=t the; project was categorically exempt under -.the environmental - guidelines. Comm. Waters mace the motion to concur with the Site Design Review Committee' +s recommendation for approval 'and Comm. Mattei seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 2. KOA ,: Proposed 8:1- space .camps.ite in the area • - of Rainsville Road and Stony Point Road. Mr. Gray reviewed the propos:al and read the Site 'Design Review Committee's report with recommended conditions of approval. He also clarified that the applicant has .worked out with the City Engineer, dependen;t.upon City Council action' ' for* adoption, of a: fee. schedule for overnight campgrounds, to extend the City sewer to the site. The conditions relative to annual review and a time limit provision as recommended by the Commission while con- s the EIQ were also added to the conditions of approvalo Chairman Borid questioned the .possibility of .other development because of the City sewer extension, and Mr. ' advised that there was essentially nothing to be serviced - but the rest of the parcel. Comm. Mattel advised. the Commission that the Council had introduced a, special fee ordinance at their ;last meeting. The Wayne Wood, a ddressed the 0 Commission and advised that the City Eng -ineer had calculated that the proposed campsite -6- Pbt.alum.a Commission-Minutes, February 5, 1974 would generate as much sewage as seven average Petaluma homes and details were being worked I out with him. Chairman Bond asked if Mr. Wood understood the conditions of approval and Mr. Wood . the annual review provision. Mr. Gray advised it meant that the Commission "retained jurisdiction" to assure that all conditions of the site design were being met by means of Annual review, Mr. Wood stated he understood and agreed to all the condi- tions of approval. Comm. Hil,ligoss made the motion to approve the site design with the ten recommended conditions of approval and Comm, Balshaw seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 AMENDMENT-TO PLANNING• Mr. the Commission that the City COMMISSION-BY-LAWS: Attorney drafted,a resolution to allow for a Calendar provision to be used for non-controversial matters. Chairman Bond advised Mr. Gray that in the future the Commission would not consider special resolutions drawn up by the City Attorney if he would not be present sent to explain them. Mr:, the resolution for amendment of the _.....by—laws and Comm.. Popp made the motion to adopt it. The motion was seconded by Comm. Waters. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 -OTHER DISCUSSION: Comm. Balshaw informed the Commission of a meeting to be held in New York regarding managed growth which he felt Mr. Gray should attend and stated he had suggested this to the Council. Councilman Mattei said he had.given the information to the City.Manager and he would check to see what was being done on the matter. Chairman Bond asked the status of the law suit and if it would be advisable for the Commission to express their feelings to the Council on the matter of an appeal. Councilman Mattei advised that the final judgement had not been handed down -7- Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes, February 5, 1974 by Judge Burke a's°yet but it should be next week. Councilman `,Daly, who was present in the audience, stated he felt the Council would appreciate a show of feelings on the part of the Commission. - Councilman Matted: said he would insure th,at.the Commission was notified as soon as the judgement was received and suggested calling a special meeting if necessary. Chairman Bond asked what the status was on the Penngrove sewer extension. Mr. Gray replied that it was felt that a General Plan should be developed before the sewer was extended to that area and the City Council had told the County-to proceed with their study but that they would like to see area plans. Comm. Popp remarked that the signs were still existing at the Petaluma Plaz'a,and,Mr Gray replied that one had been painted over and he,- would check on the remainder. ADJOURNMENT :, There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9 :55 p.m. Chairman At est