Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/21/1974,A G E N D A PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1974 '• REGULAR MEETING7z30P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL: Comm..Balshaw Bellovich H'illiyoss Mattei Popp Waters Bond STAFF: Frank B. Gray, Director of Community Development APPROVAL OF MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE SONOMA COUNTY REFERRALS: 1) Leon L. Lon - Request for a variance to allow a reduction in required..lot size from 1.5 acres to 1. acres in.order to permit a 2.715 acre parcel to be divided at 4 9' bong Road. 2). Robert G. Gardella - Variance to.allow a reduction in required sideyard setback from 10 feet. to. 3. feet. at- 183" King Road. REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION Request for modification to the provisions of TO PROVISIONS OF THE the Subdivi.s.ion Ordinance. fora- proposed SUBDIVISION O- RDINANCE parcel map subdivision at 1355 Mountain View - CARL BRISTLIN: Avenge. POLICY REGARDING OUTSIDE Discussion regarding establishment of policies WATER CONNECTIONS: regarding outside water connections. - OUTSIDE WATER CONNECTION 1) Eileen (Zorkh_ll - Request for . 4 outside APPLICATIONS: water connections to A.P. #19 -09 -56 located on Western Avenue. 2) Roy Gasper:son - Request for.4 outside water connections to A.P. #21- 010 -15 on 'Lohrman Lane. 3) William G. Edwards - Request for 2 outside water connections to A.P. #019 - 080 -03 at 2.45 Paula Lane. LIEB & QUARESMA Public Hearing to- consider the rezoning of REZONING Z6 -74: approximately 13 acres located at the north - east corner of East Washington St. and Ely Blvd. South from R -1 -6,500 to-C-0 for the proposed Washington Professional Park. PetalumA City Planning Commission Agenda, May 21, 104, AMENDMENTS TO Public Hearing to consider the annual update of ZONING ORDINANCE Zoning Ord-inAnde No, 1072 NX S �. - - b l yvF p koposed, .0 NO. 1012 N_C®S..:, amendments of Section 1-2.03 beLf i Section 6-300 pertaining, to permitted,,accqssory uses; Articles 19 & 26 pertaining to,_PrC�,,,,and P-U-D Districts; 'Section 21-203 pert a' i . ng--to private -Vat . i swimming pools; and Section 24-1'4-00 '.pertaining to Projections i I nto.xequired yard-s. OTHERBUSINESS: Discussion regarding: adopt" n r 10 0, qS0,lution concerning the need for State. Tax,xzlief to implement the Conservation -and O-err..•:Space p Elements of the General ,Plan. ADJOURNMENT -2- M I N U 'T E S .PETALUMA CITY PLANNING °COMMISS`ION MAY 21, 1974 REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY .HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA *RESENT-. Comm., Bals`haw,- Bellovich, H lligoss, Popp, Waters, Bond ABSENT: Comm. Mattei STAFF: Frank. B. Gray, Director of Community Development APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The m nutes'of May 7, 1974 were approved as submitted, CORRESPONDENCE: Mr. Gray informed the, Commission that the terms or office for Comm. Hilligoss and Bond end June 30, 1974 and they are both. eligible for reappointment. SONOMA , COUNtY Leon L. Long. - Variance request to allow e reduction REFERRALS: in req_ti ed - lot size to permit the parcel to.be divided into two parcels of 1.5 acres and 1.25 acres at, 49 Long Road: Mr. Gray briefly reviewed the variance request and informed the Commission that at the time the owners of the property came before the City requesting an out - side water connection for one house only, they had stalted.'there was no intention to lot split.. A brief discussion followed. Comm. Balshaw made a motion to forward a letter to the, County opposing the granting of the variance for reasons stated in the staff report and to also inform the County of the applicant's statement at the time of the granting of the outside water connection that he did not intend to request a lot split. Comm. Popp seconded the motion. AYES h NOES 0 ABSENT 1 Mr :0 Mrs G'. G,ardella - Variance request to allow a reduction in required sideyard setback at 183 King Road: ,Mr.. Gray briefly reviewed the variance. request and a disc;uss followed whether variances of this.:tYPe should be. considered for the City's spheres of influence in it -he same manner as they were treated within the City.: It was the general opinion of the Commission that the same criteria for the same type of development should apply in conslderin# the County= referrals. The physical layout of the site was questioned and explained by the staff. Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes, May 21, 1974 Comm. Popp made the granting of would ..result i ' n zoning ordinanc districts. The Be l lovi ch,. a motion to forward -a letter opposing the variance to the County since k',`, less side setback. - than the 'City' 7 wou allow in urban single- family _ motion was seconded by Comm. Mrs... Carl Br stlin informed the Commission that the parcel subdivision was desirable. to 'separate the two existing dwelling units for future di:sposa. of , r the. property. 'She then asked for: a clari.fica°tion �' on the comment in the staff ,report that stated Improvements consisting of curb _and, gutter would be .required ,along the frontage of the site, and added that the County.had improved up to the parcel and they had been led to believe that the County would continiue on9with the improvements along the frontage of the .r ,property. Mr. Gray explained that under - subdivision laws in the State of Califor- nia the applicant cou ld be res:ponsib,le for public improvements along the: fr°ontage ,of the property if a parce.1 subdivision was granted. He added ;that .these improvements would be a condition of the County since the road was in the County and would apply to the parcel subdi- vision request, not to the re- quested modification considered this evening. The proposed resolution was read and Comm,.,, Waters made a motion to recommend to the City C o u ncil the granting of the requested modifications to the pro- visions o.f.the Subdivision Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Comm,. Hilllgoss. AYES 6 NOES Q ABSENT 1 -2- AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 CARL BRISTLIN - REQUEST A synopsis of the request for or. modification to: the FOR MODIFJCATI ONi TO proVis,ions of the Subdivision Ordinance for a pro- PROVISIONS OF THE posed parcel map subdivision at 1355 Mountain View., SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE: Avenue was given. It was noted that the , requested' reduction in" minimum lot width, reduction in minimum side yard requirements, and lot depth in excess of twice its width would be; required, to. s;p.lit the lot because of-two exist ng dwellings on the pro- perty. . Clarification wa made that ' if the existing; houses were demolished in the future that any sub - sequent. structure wou'ld have to meet current side yar requireme and other , zoning o rdi n a nce re- quirements. Mrs... Carl Br stlin informed the Commission that the parcel subdivision was desirable. to 'separate the two existing dwelling units for future di:sposa. of , r the. property. 'She then asked for: a clari.fica°tion �' on the comment in the staff ,report that stated Improvements consisting of curb _and, gutter would be .required ,along the frontage of the site, and added that the County.had improved up to the parcel and they had been led to believe that the County would continiue on9with the improvements along the frontage of the .r ,property. Mr. Gray explained that under - subdivision laws in the State of Califor- nia the applicant cou ld be res:ponsib,le for public improvements along the: fr°ontage ,of the property if a parce.1 subdivision was granted. He added ;that .these improvements would be a condition of the County since the road was in the County and would apply to the parcel subdi- vision request, not to the re- quested modification considered this evening. The proposed resolution was read and Comm,.,, Waters made a motion to recommend to the City C o u ncil the granting of the requested modifications to the pro- visions o.f.the Subdivision Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Comm,. Hilllgoss. AYES 6 NOES Q ABSENT 1 -2- Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes, May 21, 1974. SHMENT ESTALI informed that the staff report ® OB U,TSDE . WATER OF set, up Commission criteria the staff felt were appropriate CONNECTION POLICY:: in establishing a policy regarding consideration of future outside water. connections. The Commission was then presented with a chap depicting the current service area and the points within one lot depth or 500 feet of present existing City water mains. The factors recommended for :policy adoption were then read and their intent explained Mr. Gray advised that the City Attorney had been consulted and had stated that "the - criteria suggested would meet legal requirements. Mr: Robert was called upon to clarify if the Com- mission would. be in the right if they were to deny .future applications based on the criteria suggested. Mr: Robert replied that if the criteria were adopted by the Commission and forwarded to the City Council and adopted by that body, the Director of Community Development and the Director of Public Works would be acting upon such applications, not the Commission. Mr. Robert questioned if the extension of 500 feet from existing water mains could lead to further extension of the services. Mr. Gray clarified that no water service line,would be •allowed to extend e mor than 500 feet from the existing main, therefore ' further extensions "from `water service lines would not be possible. , Comm.. Balshaw questioned if the City would have the right of future revocation of water service and Mr. Robert replied that he did not feel they did. Comm. Balshaw stated he agreed with the recommended policy as long as the County would support it, but felt the - matter should be brought back to the Com- mission if the situation changed. The question was asked how the three applications before the Commission this evening would stand it the criteria were adopted. Mr,. Gray explained that the application of, Eileen Corkhill met all the con- ditions required for approval, but the applications of Roy Caspe,rson and William G. Edwards did not, since they did not comply with the City's Subdivision Ordinance even though they were within 500 feet of an existing water main. Comm. Bond asked why the Commission was considering outside water connections when the City is faced with a water shortage. Mr.. Gray answered that the City Attorney has ruled that the City has an obligation as a utility to service those areas of the utility which were purchased from the California Water Ser- vic-e.Company. Mt. Robert further explained that the -3- Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes, May 21, 1974 City Water Department could not deny to serve people located within the area declared as the water ser- vice area. Be further explained that if a shdrtag• of water does exist the City would be entitled . to ration.. Mr. Robert advised. that past court actions - regarding p°ubiic utilities had indicated the obligation. to service even if rationing would be the result. A legal description of the water service area was asked for and the , Comm,isson was informed that there was none as such, but the City Attorney ;stated he felt the map presented this evening was fairly accu rate in depicting the water service area that the California Water .Service Company served. until 1;959. Comm.. Balshaw questioned what would happen if some- one contested the boundary,, and Mr. Robert replied that they would have to prove it. Mr. Gray infomed the Commission that the policy recommended defines the service area and.establishes r=adical 'criteria for the urban fringe o''f the City to which the City `,has agreed to sere water. He also felt that the recommended policy provided an adequate review. procedure and appeal to the City Council,, and would not burden the, Commiss.ion with forwarding ,recommendations to the City Council. Mr. clarified that the Council. had, referred . - water connection applicat.ons to the • Commission since the Council. considered them planning matters. 'He felt the Commiss=ion was fulfilling its planning responsibility by recommending a policy which could be .applied to all future-applications. Mr. Gray read the proposed resolution estAblishing an outside water connection polip 'Comm. Popp made a ;motion to adopt the resolution and .forward it to ,the City Council. Comm. Baishaw seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 REQUESTS FOR OUTSIDE l;) Eileen Co.rkhill - Request for four outside water WATER CONNECTIONS connections to' property on Western Avenue.. 2) W :lliain G. Edwards - Request for two outside water connections to 245 Paula Lane. 3) : Roy Ca.sp'ersonn - Request fox four outside. water (connections to a '5 acre parcel on Lohrman Lane. -4- • . f Petaluma Planning_.Commission Minutes, May 21, 1974 Mr. Gray informed the Commission that he would re- view the req.ue outside water connections in line with the recently adopted policy or the Commis- sion could ;review the applications as to how they met or did not meet the approved criteria and for- ward them on to the 'council for action. The .Commission determined to allow the Director of Community Development to review the applications and forward,them on to the City Council for action. Chairman Bond asked if any of the applicants were present and no response was given from the audience. LIEB & QUARESMA Mr. Gray .informed the Commission that the determina- REZONING Z;6 -74: Lion they would have to make this evening was whether the proposed Washington Professional Park,was the appropriate land use for the site'in relation to the surrounding development. He reminded the Com- mission that the E.I.R. had indicated that traffic generated from this proposed development would be greater than if developed under its present resi- dential zoning. Mr. Gray mentioned some of - the pros and cons regarding the development and clarified that in accordance with the E.I.R. one building would probably have to be eliminated from the pro- posed development because o.f, density. Chairman Bond asked flow Mr. Gray felt regarding the decentralization of commercial services,and he re- plied that generally It is,better to group the commer- cial services because of the pos.s.ibility of ex- pans.ive growth developing, from the approval of an isolated request; howe,ver,,he did not feel this would apply in this case since the surrounding area was already developed and there was little possibility of additional commercial zoning being requested. Comm. Balshaw stated he,would prefer to have the site design approval with the: rezoning to insure that the plaits presented at the time of rezoning would be what was actually constructed. The Public Hearing was opened and Mr. Dick Lieb, representing the developers, addressed the Commission. He stated that with the exception of the deletion of the 'building as indicated by the E.I.R., the plan,sresented was, what would be constructed and he felt- an. obligation to follow through with the plan as presented. Mh Lieb also .informed the Commission that changes in the site plan were slim since the -5- Petaluma Planning Minutes,,May 21, 1974 developer was ready to start on the first phase of development pment. as soon as approval was granted. mm -t individuals i He also informed the, Co the contacting him regarding the development were in favor of the proposal.versus.resident4.lal develop- mont. Chairman Bond questioned him regarding a po,ssible policing problem and ,Mr;. Lieb replied that he had discussed the matter with 'the Police, Chief who stated that, commercial zoning always required m ' o.re policing than residential, but he felt it could' be, h*andl!e.d'by more police trips into the area. Mr. Gray reminded 'the Commission that, in accordance with the provisions ons of :Section, 21-900 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Commission could, take action to re- vert the site back to its original -zoning if con­ :struction had not, begun after 1,8! months. He also reminded them that if the developer did not carry through with the plans as presented,, any revision would ;have tc1go through site ,design review and need additional E-.1.R. approval,, and he therefore felt that adequate controls were - available. Dr. Larry - Jonas, a resident of Petaluma, spoke in opposition to the development stating he was con- cerned about growth of Petaluma and also its professional growth,, and questioned the present EDP Transitional- designation. 'He stated that this development would place an additional load on East Washington which was already burdened by proJects already approved .or planned. Dr. Jonas was concerned that commercially zoned sites available for development should be considered first; that commercial development could extend up Ely Road as a result of this rezoning, and - that the- site design plans could be changed to. the detriment of the City. He also stated that according to a recent news article, the City had plenty of dentists and specialists and only needed threemore general practitioners.. In view of three othert commercial developments planned for the east side of town' Dr. Jonas did not feel this development was really necessary. He also stated as possible problems'the inte rsection _ l - of E y & East Washington which he cons.idered bottleneck, additional traffic' at the Maria .Street intersection which 'already 'had . problems, and the acoustic prob�lems caused from additional traffic. Dr. Jonas c oncluded ' by saying that as a member of the Petaluma Home Owners Association he did not feel they were in favor of thedevelopment, And he also did not feel the citize,ns.were adequate1y made Aware of the rezoning action.. Petaluma Planning Commission'Minutes, May 21, 1,974 Mar. Gray explained that the site had been designated Transitional in, 1973 be it was then felt that the designation of this site could not be specifi- ca -lly determined from a general planning stand - point. Dr. Jonas was informed that no retail sales were permitted in a C -O District and that the inter- section of E,. Washington•and Ely would be improved I both by this - deve.lopment and the .Al.derwood Sub - divis oh,•which would only leave one corner by the church that would need improvement. Don Johnson, a student at `Petaluma Senior High ,School, told the Commission he was concerned about the future of the Petaluma Sky Ranch airport, which he felt might be condemned as a potential.hazard if too. much commercial and residential development was allowed in the area. He was advised that the commercial development did not fall within the range of the airport and that any•development would have to comply with regulated clearance zones which were strictly adhered to by the City. Mr. Dick..Lieb remarked that Dr. Jonas' concern about cancerous growth to the north would be prevented by the adoption of the,policy regarding water connec- tions, since any future development would be outside of-the •500 foot range to any existing water main. The Public Hearing was closed and a recess was called at 9 :35 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:45 p.m. The addendum to the E.I.R was briefly reviewed. Comm. Balshaw stated he was still concerned about, the site design and felt PUD zoning would be more appropriate so that a definite plan could be approved in the rezoning. Mr. Gray read the cri- teria for site design review from the zoning ordinance and stated he felt that substantial control of aesthetic values could be maintained. Comm, Waters made a motion to approve the requested rezoning and Comm. Bellovich seconded the motion. AYES 5 -NOES 1 ABSENT 1. AMENDMENTS'TO ZONING The Commission was informed that the staff felt ORDINANCE INO. 107'2 the section regarding agricultu:rai lands should be N.C.S.: changed in its entirety and °would be best consi- dered , separately ;at a later date. -7- Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes, May ,21, 1974 Amendments to Section 1 -203,, defining "Structures, ";, Section 6 -301. regarding accessory uses; Sections ; 19 = 601, 1�9- 602,26 -702.2 and 26 -704.1 regarding P - - and P - C Districts; Sections 203.2 and 21 - 203.3 regarding swimming pools; and Section 24 -401.5 regarding heights of structures were reviewed and briefly discussed. Mr. Gray advised that the City 'Attorney suggested retaining the current S'ec- tion 19 -301 and not requiring a Ilse Permit for P -C Districts. He further advised that the changes to the P -U -D and P-C Districts had been made'to make the ordinances consistent; however, a complete review of these two ordinances was necessary and would be performed. at a .later date. The Public Hearing :was opened; no comments were offered from.the audience and the Public Hearing was closed., Commo Hi lligoss made - motion to approve the resolu- tion listing modification's to the Zoning Ordinance and forward it to the City Council,; the motion was seconded by Comm. Waters. AYES .. 6 NOES 0' ABSENT l OTHER BUSINESS re last meeting of the Commission Mr. Gray reze ESS • At the lution adop.ted by the City of Chino *concerning the need for State Tax Relief to implement the Con- servation and Open Space Elements, of the General Plan. In effect he stated that the City of Chino wa,s asking the State-that the assessment practices as determined by ,the, State Board of Equalization should assess open, space land as open, space land urban land as urban land, and should not in any cave assess open space land and agricultural land as urban.. Comm. Bellov ch made a motion to direct the Director of Community Development to ask the City Attorney to draft a similar resolution for the City of 'Petaluma and to forward it on to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by Ba'lshaw. AYES 6 NOES 0, ABSENT 1 ADJO.URNMENTv There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10 : 30 p chairman Attest,'