Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/16/1974AGENDA PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1974 #pREGULAR MEETING 7:30''P.M. CITY. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE LAG ROLL CALL: Comm. ..B al-shaW Bell6V:Lch. Hill Mattei Popp _ Water's Bond STAFF: Frank B. Gray, Director of Community Development APPROVAL OF MINUTES CONSENT CALENDAR: 1) S.4M Construction - Site design for a duplex to be cated at 34/36 Post ;Street,. 2) john St. Marti-n for a one-family dwelling to 6:hstrudted on the same site with two. existing one- fAmil,y dwellings at 515 Baker Street. 3) , Connolly, Development. ,.0 . bmpany - Site design for proposed. family restaurant and 'shops to be loca- ted apt. the-northeast corner .of McDowell Blvd. South and McKenzie Avenue. 'MANUEL PACHECO Continuation•of.hearing to consider: VARIANCE & SITE DESIGN: 1) VariAnce,.to,allow a,reduction from 25 feet to 6 feet in rear yard.setback. 2) Site. design, for' one; -s'tudio apartment..and two ld-xes to be. built in, two phases on the same site.with an.existing.'single-family home at 709, 717,,.And .319 "G" Street., in a, R-C District. DORRIS H. LORENZ Variance consideration to all-ow-al-reduction in VARIANCE: required sideyard setback from 2-1/2 feet 1 foot at 102 Grant Avenue. ENVIRONMENTAL 1). Walter Kieckhe-fer continuati-on.of.Public Hear- IMPACT ing to consider EIQ for proposed Lakeville QUESTIONNAIRE Shopping Center to be located at the northwest EVALUATIONS: corner bf.t. Washi-ngton St. and Lakeville Street.. - 2) Lie'b & Quare'sma - EIQ for proposed office buil dung .to be located at-16 4th Street. 3) Pr,,, Ray. Nizibian - EIQ-.fo .proposed .additional cal/dental building-at..1128 "B" Street. Petaluma City, Planning Commission Agenda,Apr1'l.16, 1974 OUTSIDE WATER 1) Roy 'C4sperson - 4 outside water connections to 15 on Vohs -man Lane. CONNECTION A. P IF REQUESTS: 2) William G. I Edwards - 2 outs:i;de water connections to A.P- -0 -8>0- 03: at 24 5 Paula Lan-e. a) Eileen. C,6rkhil-1 - outside water connections to A.P. #19-09,F56 located .'on,,Wdstern. Avenue.,. GREENBRIAR 1) Re.z,dning Public Hearing 'to: donaider rezoning PHASE II - requestfrom-PCD to PUD by you America Homes REZONING Z,3-74 for site located on the southeast, si4e�of' the SITE DESIGN Washington SOuare.S'hopping Centeti REVIEW: 2)� - Site Design .Rev =iew for 128 multi-fapily'qnits proposed for Gteeiibriar Phase II. GREENBRIAR, 1) Rezoning - Public Rearing to consider rezoning PHA 111 - reti-ue st from PCD to, P . UD by Qantas bevelo prilent REZONING Z4 Corporation for s-'1,te located on the, easterly & SITE DESIGN extension of McGregor Avenue. REVIEW': 2) Si te DP.5,�qn _ Rev i ew , Lew f or 5 s ing Ie- family units proposed folk" Greeribri Phase III. ADJOURNMENT -2- M I N U T E S PETALUMA CITY PLANNING' COMMISSION APRIL 16, 1974 '- EGULAR .MEETING ' 7:30 P . M . WIVYCOUNCIL.CHAMBERS, CITY 'HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm., Balshaw, Bellovich;, °.Hillgos,s ®.. Matteis Popp, Waters, Bond ABSENT: None STAFF: Frank B. Gray, Director of Community.Development APPROVAL OF',MINUTES: The minutes of..April 2., 1974'were approved as submitted. CONSENT CALENDAR: l) S & M Construction - Site design for a, duplex at Post St. 2) John.St. Martin - Site design for a single - family NeIling to be constructed on the same site with two ,existing single - family dwellings,. at „,,,515 Baker Street. 3) Connolly Developme - Site design fog° a family restaurant ands at the.northeast corner of So. McDowell Blvd. and McKenzie Avenue. • Comm. Balshaw made a motion to approve.-the Consent Calendar items with conditions.as.recommended by the Site.Des -ign Review.Committee and Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES'. T' NOES 0 ABSENT. 0 CORRESPONDENCE:? l) The Commission was informed.of.a proposed amend- ment to Article 2:2 of the Zoning Ordinance which the City Council would consider' their ..next regular meeting. It was determined.to consider this amendment at the end of the agenda. r - 2), The .Commission was informed of a..Sonoma County referral in which Mr. H. K. Fujita of 1650 Mount- ain View Avenue was appealing a lot Lion which required that•.the...existing.house.on Lot #1 must be connected to the City_:of'Petaluma water and sewer facilities. Water:..is presently .being .provided .to, the site but this .lot. - is . serviced by a septic system. Mr. Gray read a letter to the Sonoma.County Planning Department he prepared in response.which stated no objection.to the.use of.the.septic system, but that it should be subject to.....annual review by the Sonoma County Public'Health Department for adequacy, .and if found. to be:.defective . in the future, it. _would be..ne.cessary to_ connect, to the City's facilities,. The_members of the Commission voiced their agreement in forwarding this letter to the County. Petaluma Ci ty Planning Commission Minutes, April, 16, 1974 3,) The Planning Commission members were informed of a short course for.Planning Commissioners to be held May 31 - June 1, 1979 in San rrancisco. It was-noted that the.course was excellent for new .members :and .anyone interested should inform Mr. Gray'. MANUEL PACHECO - The Commission was advised that a meeting had taken VARIANCE. &'SIT.E place with the property owners_.concerned.and the DESIGN REVIEW: architect. Also, Mr. Kuhl property owner who had..been..in Mexico at.the time..of the first hearing, had returned and had contacted the department. As a result of these discussions the site plans were changed..- The building,nearest Mr. Carpenter's property had been turned:around and..was now proposed - :to be:.,25..:feet from .the rear property line, which was satisfactory to Mr. Caz.penter... The - building adja- cent to.M,r Kuhl's property had been moved from the proposed 6 feet from the property line to 10 feet, and Mk..Kuhl was in agreement with this change. Chairman.B "ond then asked-Mr.-Carpenter and Mr. Kuhl, who. were . pr°esent ..in . the audience_, . if they agreed with ':the changes in.the site - design. They both replied..that.•they did. It. noted that the.variance request would now be fora reduction in rear yard.setback.for one build - ing. from,.2'5 feet to 10 feet due. to the .changed plan. Comm... Bellovich made,.a motion, to approve r.eque,sted variance' and Comm.. Popp seconded the motion. AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 The conditiors.of approval recommended by the Site des . n .Review Committee were_ then read.- It was noted that a..parcel.map'would..be . to create a single parcel and this condition was added. Comm..x 1ligoss-. a mo,t on...to_.approve the site desi,gn`.with the four conditions.of approval stated and Comm.. Popp seconded the.motion.. AYES ..:7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0. DORRIS H. LORENZ- - Mr. Gr:ay..reViewed the variance request and. stated he VARIANCE: had ..den'ied. the administtative ..granting .of _the var- iancel- because - - of_ - a protest from .an. _adjacent. neighbor, and. that the applicant had therefore - appealed. his denial to. the Commission,... Photos of the site were 1 shown -to. the Commission. -2- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes., Apr l -.16., 1974 r Mr. Gray .read the four conditions that, -must be_. found. in ®rder :eto. justify .granting. a variance. He informed. .....the Commission. that the variance met three . of .the .conditions, but dial not meet the. fourth condi- tion as evidenced by the protest from the adjacent property owner. The.applicant.addressed the Commission and informed them that mature tree.s.;and bushes existed along the fence, the fence would be done - professionally, and it would only approximately one foot above the height of the existing trees. The letter of protest from Mr. Dale Amsberry of 54 Grant Avenue was read and Chairman Bond called upon hint .for comment. He informed-the Commission that the. proposed deck, was just too .close to ..the fence. :and that he could not guarantee that the trees .and shrubs would be there ,forever. Mr....Amsberry further stated_ that he did not feel. the..view from .,.his .:property would be' enhanced and that :it would be .,detrimental to.his property for resale purposes. Discussfon..fol.l ®wed regarding the size of the 'proposed deck and its location on -.the site, Comm. Mattei questioned if a retaining wall would be.permissible and.,Mr. Gray replied it would as long as the drainage was .properly. handled. Comm. Balshaw moved that the variance be granted and Comm. Popp seconded the motion. AYES 3 NOES 4 ABSENT 0 The applicant was informed that the variance was denied and that it could..be appealed to the City Council-.if desired. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 1) Walter Kieckhefer - Continuation..of.-a Public QUESTIONNAIRE Hearing to- consider.the EIQ for the proposed EVALUATIONS': Lakeville Center to -be located at the northwest.corner of E. Washington Street and Lakeville Street: A report requested by the Commission regarding the - do;rntown area. and .commercial areas in the City. was_ read,.. -It.. was,*_clarif'ied :that,_ the. proposed .development was.._located within: the confines of -.....the commercial:-area -as indicated in the Core Area Plan and the.EDp. -3- Petaluma City Planning.. Commission-Minutes., April. 16, 1974 Chairman Bond,, questioned the .traffic . aspect acid . M °. Gray; -, ,replied that'. the City ..Engineer - had been- consulted .and .that...he. felt. the capacity of Washington - Street* was,: quite .adequate. Comm. Waters..,.questioned "further widening of Washington. Street and what impact on traffic the proposed bus depot in the area and the Golden Eagle Shopping Center would have. Mr. Gray suggested a meeting with the City Engineer to clarify the traffic aspects the Commission -was concerned with. After a brief discussion by the "Commission it.was determined to request the City Engineer to be present at the next Commission meeting to discuss the present and .proposed main arterials in the City and to provide the Commission with any infor- mation on the street system that was available. The Public Hearing was reopened. The audience had no comments to offer and the Public Hearing was closed. A brief discussion followed regarding the requested C -H zoning designation for the site. ..Comm. Popp made a motion to direct the Director of ,Community Development to prepare and post a Negative Declaration fear the development.and Comm. Balshaw seconded the motion. AYES 7 NOES ° 0 ABSENT 0 2) Lieb & Quaresma - EIQ for.proposed office building to be located at 16 4th Street: A brief review of the project was given and it was noted that the reviewing agencies made no negative comment=s regarding the EIQ. The appli- cant explained further the proposed usage of the °a_ffice building. Comm.._Hill.igoss made a motion to direct the Director-of Community Development to prepare and post a Negative - Declaration for-the and Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 3) Dr. _Ray, Mizibian -.EIQ foi proposed additional medical/dentail building at 1128 "B" Street: A brief review..of. the proposal was given and it was noted that the review ng.agencies made no negative comments regarding the EIQ. -4- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, April 1,6, 1974 A long discussion,followed regarding how the project related to existing and future medical plans in the community and to the intent of the EDP. . Chairman. Bond felt the Commission should be kept informed regarding any plans for a new hospital. A meeting with the hospital personnel was suggested so that the Commission could be updated on,futureplans and Mr. Gray stated he would arrange the meeting. Comm. Bellovidh made a motion to direct the Director of.Community-Development to prepare and post a Negative Declaration for the project and Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSTAIN 1 ABSENT 0 OUTSIDE'WATER' 1) Roy Casperson 4 outside water connections to CONNECTION A.,P. #21-010-15 on Lohrman Lane: REQUESTS:1 A brief review of the * request and considerations was given. The staff recommendation was for ..denial in view of the conflict with the EDP and the City's policy regarding urbanization.in the outlying areas around the City. A brief discussion followed, after which Comm. Balshaw made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the proposed water connections be -denied. Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 2) William G. Edwards - 2 outside water connections : E6 �A.P. _#_0_1_ at 245 Paula Lane: A brief.review.of the.request.and considerations wa:s-given.. The staff recommendation was for denial in view of the conflict with the EDP, the steepness and length of the required ease - ment, and the lack of.adequate water pressure. A brief discussion followed after which Comm,. Popp made anotion to recommend to the ' City Council that.the application for two outside water.connections be denied. Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 3) Eileen Corkhill 4 outside water connections to A.P. on Western Avenue: Mr Grayjnformed the ..Commission that. the appli- cant - had requested.this...item wit-hdr'awh from -5- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, April: 16, 1974 the agenda and considered at the next regular meeting of the Commission since it was felt inadequate plans.had been presented to support the :request. Discussion followed regarding forwarding of a policy recommendation to the City Council on the matter of outside water and sewer connection requests. Mr. Gray suggested a study of the out - ly. ng.areas of the City to formulate the recommendation. The Commission agreed this should be done and requested that.the .staff prepare the necessary material. GREENBRIAR PHASE II A review of the development was given by the staff - REZONING Z3 -'74 & and it was noted that Phase ZI was in conformity SITE DESIGN REVIEW: with.th.e development plan of the Planned Community District. Questions were raised regarding Phase I of the project and Mr. Joslyn of Young America Homes :replied that the sewer and water connections were in and PG &E was waiting for the ground to dry to start their work. The question arose whether action should be taken before the final decision of the judge regarding • the construction industry law suit was received. Mr. Gray replied that he had asked the City Council for-a,procedure to follow regarding developments th -at had prior action, new developments, and developments outside the City limits. The Council had indicated that the Commission should proceed with those developments that were farthest along in the development process first and in the order of application date He added that this develop- ment had an approved Tentative Map and PCD rezoning. Chairman.Bond objected to this procedure because the construction industry had started the suit, not the City, and therefore he felt the Commission should wait for a legal written decision. He also stated it had not been determined yet if the City Council would appeal the decision or if a stay of judgement would be granted if an appeal was made, and there- fore further legal informat °ion was required to. consider the application as it would set a precedent. Mr. Gray suggested having the City Attorney at the next meeting of the Commission for as to the with developments before the final decision had been received. The Public Hearing was opened and Mr. Jon Joslyn addressed the Commission stating that the project IM Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, April 16, 1974 scored number one on the Residential Development • Control System, it had an approved Tentative Map and PCD rezoning, had no impact on schools and was surrounded by development. He therefore feat it would meet any criteria. Chairman Bond replied that since the legal written decision had not been received the City had no criteria to follow in processing applications, as it is riot known what impositions will be made. He felt that any action'on the part of the Commission could conceivably be in violation of the court ruling and also in violation of what the residents of the City had voted for. Discussion followed regarding this aspect. Mt. Joslyn informed the Commission that the sub - division was in the process for two years already and the time element was getting desperate. Dennis Boehlje, Secretary of the Residential Development Evaluation.Board, informed the Commis - sion that since the appeal process of the ratings under the Residential Development Control System had not been heard by the City Council prior to the law suit, actual determination of rankings for the 1974 -75 allotment had not been completed. Comm. Waters moved,that this item be carried over until the next regular meeting of the Commission to obtain sufficient legal information as to how to, proceed. The motion was seconded by Comm. Balshaw. 'AYES 6 NOES 1 ABSENT 0 GREENBRIAR-PHASE III The Commission was informed that this item was the - REZONING Z4 -74 & next phase of the prig item for the single - family SITE DESIGN REVIEW: portion of the subdivision. The Public Hearing was opened.and.Mr. Jon Joslyn, Qantas Development Corporation, addressed the Com- mission that the. proposed development had an approved Tentative Map and PCD rezoning, scored high in the allotment process, was completely surrounded by development, and he.felt it would be beneficial to the community. Comm. Balshaw questioned if there could be a requirement of no parking on McGregor Avenue. Mr. Gray replied that this would be up to the City Engineer and he would it with him. -7- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, April 16., 1974 Comm.' Balshaw made a motion to continue the Public Hearing until the next regular meeting and Comm. Bellovich seconded the motion AYES 6 NOES 1 ABSENT 0 MODIFICATION TO Mr. Gray explained the proposed change to Section ZONING ORDINANCE- 22 -304.2 of the zoning ordinance had been NO. 1.072 N.C.S., by the.Cty.Council.since searchlights are not ARTICLE 2'2: allowed in the present zoning ordinance. The Amendment would allow their usage with the issuance of a temporary sign permi.t,. It was clarified that a searchlight is an advertising mechanism. Council- man.Mattei added that the intent of the proposed, ordinance change was to allow - searchlights as in the past for carnivals -, etc. on 'a temporary basis only. Comm. H ,lligoss. made a motion to advise the City Council that the Planning Commission had no objec- tion to the proposed ordinance and Comm..Popp seconded, motion. AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 ® OTHER BUSINESS: Chairman Bond requested an update regarding the City Council meeting on April 15, 1974, and the reason for the delay by that body in considering the .proposed historic and cultural preservation section_of the zoning, ordinance. Mr. Gray explained. that the Chamber of Commerce had prepared a r.esolu- tion requesting that action be delayed until members of the commercial community had met and reviewed the proposed ordinance. Accordingly, a meeting was being arranged with the Chamber of Commerce, the'AB -103 Downtown Improvement Committee, the Downtown Merchants Association, and the Mayor',s .- Select Committee on Historic Preservation for April 23, 1974. Mr. Gray added that he had spoken to Mr. Shannon of the Chamber of Commerce and the suggested changes. were minor and could be accomplished. Chairman Bond :stated he felt the resolution by the Chamber of Commerce was an affront to the Commission since three public hearings been held ,and a study session, and,he felt that suffi- •clent opportunity for any :input had been.a He also . remarked thatAit was the . purpose,.,of the Commission.to..receive a'll input before forward ng to. the Council_ for action, and. did not .feel it was proper. to - circumvent the :Commission - and pre- sent. input .a this., stage -8- `w Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes., April 16, 1974 Comm. Hilligos.s stated that the By -Laws of the Commission require that the zoning ordinance map and text be updated every April. Mr. Gray replied that changer in.the text were being drafted and I would be presented at the next meeting of the Commission. Comm..Hilligoss informed the Commission that in accordance with the By -Laws of the Commission the. Site Design Review Committee. is to be composed of three Planning Commissioners, an architect, and the Director of Community Development. Discus - sion followed regarding the adequacy of the present method of two Commissioners. Mr. Gray advised the Commission that he would draft up a resolution to change the requirement to two Commissioners. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Att 'at: 2 Q Chairman m