Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/04/1974A G, E N D A PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG JUNE 4, 1974 7:30 P.M., PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA ROLL CALL; Comm. Balshaw Bellovich Hilligoss - Mattei Popp Waters Bond STAFF.: Frank B. (Fray,,Director of Community Development APPROVAL OF MINUTES CONSENT CALENDAR: Request for modification to the approved site design for Western Motors, 1221 Petaluma Blvd. North. CORRESPONDENCE SONOMA COUNTY REFERRAL: Robert L., Hartmann -.Use Permit to allow an antique shop and gift shop at 3690 Bodega Ave. in a Countyt-2-P District. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 1) 7- Eleven Food Store - E10 for proposed QUESTIONNAIRES: site aE Baywo'oF 'Drive & Perry Lane. 2) Auto Parts Sqpr,)l.,y Co. - EI0 for proposed major addition at 32 Fourth Street. 3) Walter Kieckhefer' - Public Hearing to consider EIO for proposed P-U-D rezoning for a located at 10 Blvd. South. B.M.W. ASSOCIATES 1) Public Hearing to!consider_granting a Use USE PERMIT U5-74 & Permit to allow a neighborhood shopping SITE DESIGN REVIEW: center (Baywood' Center) containing approxi- mately 78,000 gross sq. ft. of retail- commercial space at the intersection of Baywood' Drive and Perry Lane. 2) Site ..design consideration for proposed Baywood Center. 10 ADJOURNMENT j. M I N U T E S PETALUMA: CITY: PLANNING COMMhSSION JUNE 4, 1974 ;REGULAR MEETING' 7:30 P.M. CITY ,COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA • PRESENT:, Comm. B`als`haw *, Hi1'ligoss,. Ma.ttei, Waters, Bond *Comm. Balshat4 arrived at 7:55 p.m. ABSENT ' -Comm. Bellovich, Popp STAFF: Franc B. Gray, Director of Community Development APPROVAL OF'MINUTES. The minutes of May 21, 1974*were approved as sub - mitted. CONSENT CALENDAR: The Commission was advised that the Consent Calendar item for Western Motors had been withdrawn. CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Gray informed the Commission that there was no correspondence but 'he wished to advise the Commission that the City Council had adopted the Commission's recommended outside water connection policy on June 3, 1974. Councilman Mattel. also 'informed the Commission of other Council actions - of that date. SONOMA.COUNTY Robert L. Hartman - An oral summary of the request REFERRAL;: for .e use permit to allow an- antique shop and gift shop at 3690 Bode,ga Avenue in a County C -2, -P. District was given.by the staff. It was the ; 'staff's recommendation to forward a letter stating the conflict with the City's General Plan and the EDP,'but recommending granting of the use permit subject to, annual review.in light of surrounding use and present zoning. A discussion followed regarding the land use in the - area and adherence.to the goals of the EDP, after which the Commission determined to direct the Direc- tor of.community Development to forward a letter to the County noting :'its ' , ' conflict with the City's General Plan and EDP designations. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 1,) 7- Eleven Food Store - EIQ for proposed site at QUESTIONNAIRE. Baywood Drive & Perry Lane: •EVALUATI;ONS A•brief oral summary of the environmental aspects of the project and the proposed site was given by the staff. Comm. Waters .noted .that the EIQ did not cover the two parcels adjacent to-the proposed project and questioned the future use of these parcels and the possible environmental impact of these three 'parcels as a whole. The applicant was called upon for clarification'. Petgl,uma -Planning Commission Minutes, June 4, 1914 Mr. 'Robert F. Carmody, the agent for the.pro- ' p.e rty ownerCommission. - Commission. - . addressed the Comms d . ;L , ; ,- f rme d them tha' ' t.the only pro j.ect_-.-d�e fi n#e �A,t y this, time - f,br the three parcels was; . the. .3- Eleven.-propQpAl_ .. -He added...that a..t-wo- retail sales and off ice buildi6cr was proposed for the middle parcel and. . a restaurant "was being ''considered for the third .parcel Mr[, Balshaw express.ed the des irabiil pf� con.= sistent and, compatible building, desigp-,• or: ;the three. parcels and Mr..,. Carmody replied.-,that- was •,._ , his intent. A short discussion land uses, in--thp immediate Area followed. Mr. Carmodv was reminded, that id - t the E Q under cons was', only e h ­, construction, .of_ the 7- E'leveh ;ands that .Rr pQp4ls for . the other two parcels-- would. _,rqqP_ EI,Q's or an 'EIR. at, the d iscretion of the Commis,sion, Mr, Carmody :r.eplied, that -,he -was Aware of 'th is. requirement. Chairman Bond also requested that Mr. Carmody bear in mind the contiguous aspect of design for.the three parcels. - '� Comm. m to d ,dmm. Mattel made, otion irect,the,,Direc- tor of Commu Development to.p rppar ` ,e an post, - a Negative Declaration for. . the p , p? :, I 3 pc and Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES 4 NOES, 6 AtSTAI-NED., ABSE 2. 2) Auto Parts. Suppl Company .-.EI,Q. d propq�e major Addition at 32 Fourth Str,eet:. A bri oral summary,•gf the.-pr�oppsed.�.projq!?t and, the environmental Aspects <of the -,p.roj!eqt,., was qlven_by the staff.- Ashort discussion_ follow.ed pa.rking,, traffic .. circulat' internal circulation, and the future use for the Greyhound-dolden Gate Transit but depot and the adjacent lot owned. by the ; applicant rto the southwest on "V' Street Comm Hilli-goss, made a motion to direct the Director of Community.- Development to o and post A Negative Declarteibn for the and, Comm Balshaw secondedthe.motion_ AYES '5 NOES. 0 _ABSENT* 2. t Peta'IuM&`Planning Commission Minutes, June 4,,1974 .3) Walter°Kieckhefer - Public Hearing to consider e EIQ„ -for proposed P -U -D rezoning for approx- imately 18 adre located at 1051 Petaluma Blvd. South: The Commission viewed a model of the proposed P- U-Ij'. T ie staff informed the Commission that extens.ive.referral had been accomplished for the ,project, and.the environmental review comments were read from the staff report. The staff recommendation was to require an HIR since it'was felt information provided was not sufficient.. The Public Hearing was opened and Mr. Walter Kieckhefer addressed the Commission. He stated that the project was a result of the Petaluma River Study which suggested that there be a gradual transitidn'away from industrial uses of the river to residential and recreational tas -age . Mr. Kieckhefer stated that he did not feel it was necessary to dedicate 2.48 acres to the City for parks and recreation as stated in the staff report, because. the project was a condo - minium and residents therefore had common rights over the entire property and because of the encouragement to utilize the river. He also stated that he was concerned about the storage tan'k's for flammable liquids that were within approximately 15 feet of the property 4 line, but that he was working with the Fire Department and the owners of the storage tanks on the problem. Mr. Kieckhefer advised the Commission that,the owner had indicated to him that-he intended to dispose of the tanks in two years. Mr. Kieckhefer then addressed the negative e.nvironmental of the staff report. He stated that he would obtain approval of the Corps of Engineers for-a pier or abandon the idea of a pies. Mr. Ki.eckhefer advised that soils tests for the property.relating to seismic,dat.a and.bank slippage.had been already accomplished and were very favorable_, and that he mould furnish the Corps of Engineers and the Cali €okn a Regional'' Water Quality Control Board.with the additional information desired. With regard to the .comments -of the Recreation Director to use the site as'a park, Mr. Kieckhefer informed the Commission that he would like to see the study accomplished and a determination.made. Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes, June 4, 1974, . Mr. Kieckhe,fer stated he felt the distance to s`choo'l was excellent.: ' He :also ` advised :he was aware of the " 1,2 li - in °c sewer' main ext'en s +on `-' ®. required. to. the "pro:pos'ed -development an'd would also provde 'the -50 turning 'radius :requi.r K ed by the - Fire - Chief. Mr.' eckhefer'further r r stated- that the project contained. bicycae. and publ, c ' access to the °river 'whchy would - be landscaped 'the - cir:culdtio' - provided in the development'would - be a dedicated City road. Mr Kieckhefer c ®ncluded by 'saying 'that he' did ,not feel the 'project had a substantial adverse impact on the environment.. He added he would accomplish an EIR'if the,Commissrori so _directed, but asked . that the E,hR reques _be such "as to concentrate on the. of serious concern only. No other public comment was offered' and the` 'Public Hearing was closed. The COmmiss§16ti was advised by -the ^staff that - according to the :established EIR - only those +items of'serioiis concern would be "required t t6 'b6 addressed n any EI'R''..' 'Comm:: Balshaw "° t asked that 'the report add'tes,s - th ;worse s tua- t.ions conceivable, 'such as the `'possi.ble 'r-eten- ti.on of - the storage tanks or if an alternate �. solution is possible to mitigate negative, a_ s ects , the should 'be ,proposed _ Comm. Wat'et9'_rdferr6d the' Petaluma _'River Study and informed the Commission that the concern at the time of i ts preparation was with regard to the long plans for the .river, and since this was the first development proposed along the' r ver`.wh ch could generate future de.velopmen , cautiori' should'`be "exercised. in ,its ,approval. Comm. Balshaw made: :a .motion to require an EIR. for the project and Comm'. Waters seconded the motion:o...... AYES 5 NOES 0' ABSENT 2 The °EDP designation: "of a park .for the ,s.ite..was questioned, - and, Chairman *Bond.'requested. the; staff obtain an update of possib':le -p ans for'.a park on the site. The Commiss ion.was.'.'riformed "that a report .would _be ready - for the next meeting: Mr., K'ieckhefer .informed the Commission that in past - •convers:a.tions• with- one of-the- members- of the Wiliiams & Mocine staff who had prepared thVw' EDP, he had been led to be-1 eve that the site had been arbitrarily designated ,as a park because of concern for peripheral development and because no duel- opment activity was known for the site at that time. r. 'Petaluma Planning. Commission Minutes, June 4., 19'74 B.M = W. ASSOCIATES' - The: proposed, site plans were shown to the Commission USE . PERMIT U5' -74' & for their review. .The Commission was reminded that SITE DESIGN REUI,EV :, the., proposal was .a revs si;on of approved plans for the, site, and a'bref oral review of the project was,, given. The . ;s'taf'f. recommended approval of the use permit subject to recommended conditions of approval o,f the site desi n. These recommended conditions were then react. it was noted that the City Engineer did not call for publ i ic mprovements on Perry Lane, and the staff expl ained that th s.was because of the possible abandonment of that street. Discuss "i.on followed regarding. sib :le . future•development of the site opposite Perry. Lane and whether the developer should. be :requir.ed.to provide any public improvements. Comm. ` Balshaw questioned the possibility of utilizing Perry Lane as a bus terminus for commuters and also to provide commuter parking. 'The Public Hearing was: opened. Mr. Merle D. Goat ey, the arch tech for the project, addressed the Commission and advised that the applicants did,not .intend to develop Perry Lane. Mr. Gray sugge,s-ted :adding a - condition that if in the future Perry Lane was improved as a public street that the subject property owners would be required to participate to the extent of public improvements for a curb, .gutter, "sidewalk and half - street im- provements. This 'suggestion. was agreeable to the applicants and the Commission and was determined to be added as Condition V. Comm,.. Balshaw questioned the feasibility of exer- cising the option provided in the Zoning Ordinance to revert back to the original zoning if the pro - ject was not `50% completed. the rezoning ex- tens ioh,,deadl ine im J "uly 1974, since there might ,conceivably be an excess of ' shopping centers. A short discussion followed; after which the Commission determined to; add Conditiori',48 requiring that a development plan schedule be filed for the project. Myron MacNeil,.a resident on the adjacent Alderwood Court, expressed concern regrdin the closeness of the build 'in s to his. property, t ' he lighting, hours of lig -h,. ing , the adequ.ady of the present height of the wall;, and the poss bit y of noisy •refsigera "ton uni,'ts on top of the buildings. Mr. Gray replied that' the buildings were of the low silhouette.type to provide compatibility with surrounding residential, uses, and that the develop - m-ent would be 45 feet from the stone wall near his property Mr. Gray also advised that loading -5- Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes, June 4, 1974 facilities would be on the rear walls adjacent. to the flood control channel; lighting would.be in the 'park ng lot areas, An`d'wall lights on the buildings, would be shielded so as to not project into adjacent properties. 'He :added that it was not aesthetically advisable to make the wall higher than i,t already is The applicants" architect then „showed Mr. MacNeil the.proposed,plans and explained the project to him. A recess called at 9::35 p.m. and the meeting .resumed` at 9:40 p.m'. It was, clarified' for a member of the- audience that the:zonng::had already been obtained for the site and, the use.; ;permit to - allow the- shopping' center was being considered this evening.. No further public comments, were offered and the Public Hearing was closed Discussion followed regarding chaining off the de- livery lane around thee, perimeter of the development at night or installing speed, bumps to prevent it from being used a's a. racing a�eao The Commission de- termined to add cond #9 stating that. the developer would control unauthorized night time usage of the site. Comm. Balshaw'made a motion to approve the use permit subject to the conditions of the s`i'te design approval as amended, and Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES 5 NOES' 0 "ABSENT 2 Comm,. Hilligoss made a motion to approve the site design with condition's as, recommended by the Site Design Review Committee and amended by the Commission. and Comm. Matted seconded the motion..;. AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT. 2 OTHER BUSINESS-. Chairman Bond asked if it would be possible to obtain a copy of the 1974 -75 proposed. projects and Mr. Gray replied this information was 'contained in the 1974 -75 proposed Program of Service, and he would seethat`the Commiss one obtained copies. Mr. Gray also advised that he. obtain copies of the capital outlay'budget for the Commis if it was available. -6- Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes, June 4, 1974 • ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting ad- journed at 10;00 p.m. Chairman Attest: -7-