Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/20/1974A G E N D A PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMIS'S'ION FEBRUARY 20, 1974 *GULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL•, 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 Community Development APPROVAL OF MINUTES CONSENT CALENDAR: 1) Site Design Review 'for Northbay Savings & Loan Asscc ation_ proposed new site in the area bordered by "C" St,., 4th St., and Petaluma Blvd. So. 2') Site Design Review for Foster's Freeze addition located at 101 4th St. CORRESPONDENCE 0 AWRENCE J..BEAL - Public Hearing to consider the EIQ relative to the ENVIRONMENTAL applicants request for a - Use Permit to allow an IMPACT automo'b'ile repair garage in an.M -L District to be QUESTIONNAIRE Located on the south side of Lakeville Street at EVALUATION: Jefferson St. , CONNOLLY DEVELOPMENT,, Public Hearing to consider the application submitted INC: - REZONING Z1 -74: by Connolly Development, Inc'. to rezone approximate- ly 7.6' acres from. R -1 -6,500 to a P.U.D. District on the east side of U.S. 1.01 Freeway between.Lindberg Lane and the southerly terminus of.Stuart Drive. EXTENSION OF SEWER Report on a petition from property owners along & WATER FACILITIES - Petaluma Blvd. North,requesting a study of the PETALUMA BLVD. NORTH: possibility of obtaining City sewer and water in the area between Cinnabar Avenue and the Denman interchange. BIKE STUDY: Consideration of the Bicycle Route Plan prepared by Lampman & Associates. DJOURNMENT i M I N U T E S PETAZUMA C1,TY `PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 1974 REG.ULAR 7: P .M. ITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm. Balshaw�, 'Bello Hi;lligoss, 'Popp, Waters, Bond ABSENT: Comm. Mattei STAFF: Frank B, Gray,, D irector of Community Development Dennis Boehlje., Associate Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of February 5, 1974 were approved as submitted. CONSENT CAtENDAR:- Commissioner Popp made a mot to approve Items #1 and #.'2 of the Consent Calendar and Comm. Waters seconded the motion.. The:motion carried unanimously. CORRESPONDENCE: �1. Mr. Gray advised the Commission of a 'te.levi- sYon study course relating to "Environmental Impact Reporting & Evaluation." 2. The C,ommisson.was advised that all members had been fuiriished. memo from the City Attorney to with the Secretary of State Information Manual regarding "Conflict of Interests" pr6vision6 3,. Mr, Gray informed the- Commission that after checking with the,Chairman he had noticed a special meeting of the Commission for February 26, 1974 to consid a determination of. Negative Declaration for the City of Petaluma's Water Pollution Control Facilities 1972. He - explained that-the State Lands Commission ' had required that environmental evaluation.. under ..the new State guidelines be mAddi before proceeding on to State lands, even'though,a.valid contract existed and work was already being accomplished. Immediate action on this matter is requ ted.so that the contractor will, not be held up. Mr. Gray adVis further that under the EIR guidelines he .has the authority to make an environmental evaluation. His determination that the pro- ject will not have a significant detrimental effect on the environment has therefore been noticed in the paper to a l low the public to comment on why a N eclative Declaration should not be filed., if they §6 -desire . Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, rebruary 20, 1974 4. The Commission was advised that the' MAyor'os- Select . on Hi.sto ric P'reservation, wished to have .4 study session , the Commission to review, their final - ,,,.repckrt which would result 'in the. adding oia new section to the Zoning Ordinance, Artic 17,. relating to historic preservation,. All Commi's"ploners present were a greeable to � thi's� stvid ' y session to be, 'held aftOr. the.. specia), mbet ing of the .Comm i.ssion FObruary 26, 19 LAWRENCE J,. BEA The Commission was: advised, that :a Use Permit,, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT variance and §ite­de would , a1so be QUESTIONNAIRE' requ - ired,for this 'proposed a�utornobile repair garage EVALUATION on La keville Street. The_p6rti6rrs• of the , sta:f-, report applicable to.. the, EIQ were then road,. The Public Heariftg was opened.zand Mr. Bob, Kopni,tzer in the" Comm ission . he represented the; applicant and would answer- any ,questions�.. NO comments were' made from,_ the,. audience..,,and the Public7.'Hearin was- closed. Comm;.. Balshaw,.made a motion that the lCommiss.ion direct the Director of Communit - y t o Developmdnt prepare and pQbt,a Negative - arat and Comm. Popp seconded, the motion. • AYE 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 CONNOLLY DEVELOPMENT, Mr. -Gray a the Commission that- since the INC'., r- REZONING ..Commission 'had considered the EIS' on this proj"ect Z1"74;:, at. their last meeting, the applicant, had removed the apartment .building f rom the project and replaced it.with ten units. He then gave ;a brief review of the proposal for the . 50 units and added that the proposed City bike route indicated a, path through, a portion of this deve'lopmenti, and the architect had been so - advised. Mr,,. Jens H ansen., representihg,C6nnolly Development Addressed the Commission,: And Advised, - thAt­qm - '' erg!ency fire exits .15 feet wide utiliz blocks s been planned as requested by the - Fire Chief . Revised plans were, p resented. to the Commissioners. Mir. Hansen added that one access way would' have a solid strip for the'.' . q 0s 'pr p ed hike path. there, would -also be, an extOnsive. berm along -the freeway and thd, site would be heavil landsca .-y _ped. Mr. Hansen: also adv. that., the apartment building plans had been abandoned And it would be dem61i hed Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, February 1974 The Public:Hearing was opened and the public asked for comments. Mr. Bill Hole,.453 Stuart S't.. , asked how many additional 'people and cars this' project would put into the area. He was,w' .that there would be approximately ly ] 5 0 people and a maximum . of 100 vehicles_ for .approximately 500. vehicle.. trips per day. which is. -the same as for. ;conventional residen- tial usage Mr. Hole was also apprised that half of the traffic would drain out to Caulfield, and. that plans. to put in a signal. at McGregor and McDowell Blvd. would help to_.alleviate the traffic ' problem Mr,. Hole .disagreed and - stated that a traffic l._ ght. was- not..the: answer, and,. the proposed project * was,. just. too ;much. for an area that already had traffic problems r Chairman Bond. <; asked' for..additional comments, and A member -of the 'audience...stated " that.Mr. Hole had j expressed_the feelings of. others present. Chairman Bond.then_.asked if anyone. .,could provide an alter- native. Mr. Bill Matthews, 1266 Lindberg Lane, reminded the C'©mmission about the residents' opposition to a pr ®po,sal_ to .construct :ap:ar tine nts in that area three yeax°s ago He also stated that he has heard a lot of talk about open space and felt this ..would be a good'`place for a.:nei.ghborhood type park since there are in the immediate area.. Mr. Matthews also thought a park would,help alleviate traffic pro - hl.e.ms lhc*6. residents would not have to go to other parks; in the vicinity. Chairman Bond replied that wi =th neighborhood parks at Miwok and McDowell Schools and ,the new County park, the Recreation Department,might find it hard_to justify a proposal for. &, pack on the. s,ub.je.ct site. Mr. Norman Johnson spoke.in favor of the development:, reminding those present of the past zoning and proposed.densty for',this area,. He felt that with the_;- reduction, of units to 50.and the type of.develop- ment that. would be provided under PUD zoning, the project was quite suitable for the area and a good compromise. The Public Hearing' was closed. A'g,reat deal of discus, Sion followed.regarding.the density .of 6.5 units .per acre,. Comm. Balshaw felt that the 2 to 6 units per acre density as. outlined in the EDP should -be maintained. Mr. Gray clari- f'ied that if the, resolution were approved as it -3- Petaluma .City :P -land ng Corm* ssion .M nute's�, F,ebtua�ry 2.0 , 1.9'7,4' was, proposed it 'would ,in. effect approve the 5'0 -un :t . development plan 'unless . the Commission stated otherwise. He then ., .read the specific. findings the C ommitsisu on, must. make for a. PUD, in .compliance w ith Section 19 - 900 of` the: Zoning• %Ordinah6e,. Comm.. Waters made'a motion to', approve the rdsolu- tion, with, the development .plan as . s.ubmi,tte4 and with the ?specifi f ndi.ngs_ read. Comm,. BeIlovidh seconded -the- motion„ AYES 4 NOES' .2 ABSENT 1 Chairman Bond asked that in the f ut ure "attention be given to adhering -to the maximum 'af 6. units .per acre density as indicated for planned residential in the EDP.. Mr Gray as}ced i f it was, the desire of the Commission that the departmen,t not, accept plans for greater than 6 units per acre; Chairman. Bond replied, that if this could be: a general and not a .specific procedure,, such a po icy wiould 'be desirabld Any exceptions-, to: this density brought _bef 6rer the Commission should have strong J�usti lidation_. Other members of 'the Commission agreed 'to this policy;. Comm,. Popp f'e'lt that, members . of . the., aud' ie.nce. should made aware of ' fact that the developer could, have.. constructed 'single family :i lint�s, with three -to four bedrooms under the R . : -1 -6 5.00 Bonin g.,, . w ich cool have posed more prob.l.ems than the: PUD proposal. EXTENSION OF SEWER &. Mr. Gray exp,l.ained to the Commiss=ion that_ K. .Robinson WATER, FACILITIES' - had initiated a p:eti.t -ion. o.f property owners ,along A• PETALUM BLVD. NORTH- Petaluma Blvd„ ;North requesting a .study. the po.sti bi,lit y of obtaining y g Cit sewer and water in the, -area between Cinnabar Ave.,and the Denman.Inte�change The_.City Council wanted the Planning�Commission°s input in to. any.dd isi , that they would make; therd- fore, the planning staff. had prepared a. report estimating the growth inducing': impact, which could be passed on, to the .Co=uncil :,f the 'Commission so desired. It would then b . e the responsibility o f the 'homeowners to approach the County to make an ass,ess- ment study. Mr. Boehl,e addressed the G � oinmission r,egar. ng the staff report, and the Assi=stant City Engineer indicated on an area ma where the trunk 'Lines presently existed. -4 Petaluma City Planning Commis:sion•:Minutes, February. 20, 1974 The.:question „was raised. i_f'.there was a health pro= blem, and, Mr. Gray, replied that the:request� -for •' sewer .connections':was'twofold.- ..there is a health - problem the.area, and also there is.a desire for development that-would require sewers. Comm ..Balshaw.felt that-the-development potential would be- changed if . sewer s..we'r.e. extended and would be justification for ;replanning the.area,.which would not-,.be i n agreement with past..actions of the Commis ; s i on . Mr. Robert :Reed., Supervising 'Sanitarian with. the County.. Health Depar:tment,, .was called upon to, verify that a hea-lth..prbblem actually existed... He informed the Commission that there was a.health. problem .inasmuch as some o€ the older homes.have pipes that go: all the way. to the Petaluma...River, and there is sewage..in ..the ditches in. the winter time. He stated that it-would help .clean .up the area if a small as- sessment district could be created, if such action ..was feasible from an economic and engineering stand- po Chairman Bond. asked.what the County would do if the sewer ,was; not extended, and Mr. Reed replied that a house to house sanitary survey would have to be made;, and if the sewage could not be .adequately handfed, civil action would have to be taken to vacate the homes,. He clarified that the request this-evenng was not based on such a survey, but on Mr.. .DooI ttle's knowledge. of the area over the past fifteen years. The;p.ossIbility of alternative solutions was questioned and.discussed., Mr. Reed stated that they were abound by a resolution - of .the . San Francisco Bay Region .LVater Quality Control Board which stated that no urban ' iz ' ation would be allowed with septic tanks and that public sewers were required•unless it could be proven that there would be non- bene,f :icial effects. Chairman Bond commented that no.informa regarding a Health problem. had been, presented, and he felt this information was needed. Mr. Reed stated that it might. be necessary to-make-a' 'survey' to come 'up' with .these facts. `Discussion fo regarding the.BBP designation for the area,and the possibility of infilling this elongated area. -5- Petaluma City Plannring. Commis. salon "Mi;nutes, `Febr°uary 20, 1914 - Mr. T. Carlson,. _�co -owner of the ol d King Ranch on the west side of Petaluma Blvd. North, informed the Commission that 20 acres of his total. of 40, acres were in an assessment d`istr .ct.. Ile added th at. if a plan for extension of the sewer was ,.not forthcoming within the next.. 4. of 5 years, '.he would be forced to lot. split it into 1"l /Z acre . .1.'ots. Mt., 'Carlson did .not feel that it. wa . reasonable to say that .no.. would be allowed ,and_withhold; :the ;s-ewer as 'a means bf"_. control ling it.. H a l so felt that; .the property owner"' b inves'tmen.t. and payment of property taxes should be considered- .K- .. Robinson addressed the* 'Commission and stated. that Mr. Amaral, and now k0k, .a re payi-ng, to nput in a sewer l ine to .their property which would not:.be.the ro er, si -ze and P ..p " -„ r would., then have .to" be replaced if the sewer were - ex,tended at a later date. She felt that the proper s`?-ze pipe's should be put in with the overall picture of the sewer going ;in as Ear down as Corona Road. 'She added that some people are in a sewer assessment distri now and are paying but not benefiting by it. Mr.., Gray explained. that the amount of` money paid in An assessment district relates to the possibility of that Land :receiving , sewer. The Assistant city Engineer explained the primary, secondary, and tertiary assessment district. H& clarified that if a: ownar' paying' an assessment" he has the righ=t to hook into that system at his- own expense, although it.•mght not be economically feasible to :do.:so:; but the City is not,. obligated to extend the sewer. Mr. Gray referred. to a report called "A Study Regarding. - Collection & Disposal of.. Wastewater-" by Yoder, which was donez in 1965 and lays out a "master 'pldn• for =the City, indicating plans for the sewe in that area-. K... Robinson asked if the zoning in, this area could . not�be conditioned,, and Mr. Gray advised that it was in the County:and not under the control of the C ity. He added that the people could p et it i on for annexation, to the. City, but then would have to meet other City standards which. he,. did 'not. think 'they would want to do. Mr. Carlson replied that-,,- speaking for his parti cular acreage, there" would be no hesitation �on his part to incur the necessary expenses to bring the sewer Petaluma City Planning 'Commission Minutes, February 20, 197A to his property. K. Robinson - stated she felt a number of 'people also felt that way, and some of them were within, the City limits. Chairman Bond stated again that this was; information that was not substantiated. The view of the Commissioners was requested for input- into the report .to the Chairman Bond summarized this input., directing the staff to report to_th6 Council that the Commission could not at this time : recommend - - the.creation of..a sewer assessment district in that area,; however, upon the presentation of documentation of health difficulties or problems in the form of a• report identifying the quantity and quality of health - . problems,, and also. alternative solutions.for, solving them,,. the Commission would review the situation the Commission also wished to.express their concern about potential development in this area which may conflict with EDP policies. A recess was called at 9:.30 p..m. and the meeting resumed at 9:40 p.m. BIKE STUDY: Mr. Gray informed. .the Commission that Mr. Arnold Johnson from Lampman & Associates; Mr. Tom Hargis, Asst, City Rng and Mr. Jim Raymond, Recreation Director were present to explain the proposed bicycle route plan and.answer questions. Mr—Arnold Johnson referred to the aerial photo on ;the wall which indicated the proposed bicycle route. He.stated that the recommendation was for 57 miles of bikeways, one =half of which would be located in the. present City limits. The cost for this route .was..estimated at a.little over 1.7 million dollars. This figure did not innlude for right-of -ways, since it-was hoped that easements could be obtained.. Five hundred, and forty two thousand.d,ollars would be spent within the existing City limits and the construction was proposed to-be in phases.. Mr. ?ohnson explained the types of bicycle routes - Class 1 with an off - street area for bicycles; Class II.w.ould be in- street area, but with separate markings for bicycles,; and Class II would be signing only and would be on low volume streets. Bicycle safety courses and police enforcement were also a part of the plan,. Mr. Johnson added that the Bikeways Committee had provided input into the plan -7- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, February ZO, Mr. Raymond. stated that the plan 1 would link the east and west and would.provide outlets to the..'country. ,He, added that the coordination of 'the County would be required=. Mr. Raymond also requested that the Commission consider the bi-cycle, route when reviewing future developments. In this regard, , the Commission . that. when the route .was. adopted they.,ihould be. -giv,en-gen.eral- rules to apply to situations that would come: be them. Discussion followed recrarding the proposed route,. Chairman .,Bond summarized the opini L ons of the Commi,6= s,ion by stating that An.- the preparation. of the f in,al report a better graphic presentation should be provided; . some , type ..of.,loopiroute in both the east hold 1 and west should be provided in the f*rSt phase; and thought should. be :given, to a.. sharing of the cost of this' -project by-those who-would enjoy the usage of the rbute Comm. Uilligbos made a.motion to forward, the report to the Council, with the inclusion of these recommen- dations and Comm. Popp sevonde4 thel,mot-ion. AYES 6 NOES .. 0. ' ABSENT 1 ADJOURNMENT; There being no further- business the meeting adjourne at 10:740 p.m. Attest: ChAitman Im