HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/20/1974AGENDA
ET
ALUMA CITY PLANNING,COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1974
REGULAR,MEETING 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS', CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
PLEDGE AL °LEGIANCE• TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL: Comm. Balshaw Bel,lovich H Llligoss Mattel
Bond
waters
Popp -
'STAFF: Dennis Boehlje, Senior Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CORRESPONDENCE
WESTRIDGE UNIT #1 - Consideration of the Final Map submitted by
FINAL MAP:. C:ondott,i En'terpriseis, Inc. for Westridge
S:ubd'ivision, Unit i , consisting of 104 single-
`. family units located..on I" 'Street.
0 YENDMENTS' TO THE
.N�lIRONMENTAL DESIGN
PLANS OF THE GENERAL
PLAN FOR THE CITY OF
PETALUMA:
Public Hearing to consider it-he following changes
to•the Environmental Design Plans:
1) Walter Ki.eckhefer Property -
designation c ange from park" to "planned
r.esdenta'1 at 6 units per acre and a small
park..
2) - McNear Island - Peninsula - Recommended
. desi,gnatiob change, from "Study Area" to
"recreation" and, "small scale commercial.."
3) No: McDowell Holding Zone Recommended.
designation change from a "commercial holding
zone to "urban residential" at 10 units per
acre
ADJOURNMENT.
M I N U T E S
CITY" PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 1974
REGULAR MEETING- 7 3`0 P M
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
PRESENT, -. Comm. Balshaw, Bellgyich,, Bond,- Hilligoss,, Mattei, Popp, Waters%
*Comino Waters arrived at 7::40 p.om.
ABSENT: None
STAFF Dennis Boehlj'e,.Senior Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of August 6, 1974 were approved as
submitted o _
CORRESPONDENCE A Tether to *the Commission from the Petaluma Area
,Chamber of Commerce regarding the . three recommended
:EDP changes was acknowledged
Sonoma County _Referrals
1,) First Assembi of God, Church - Use Permit to
allow a church, to e constructed at 2875 Old
Adobe Road - "in a County.A ®B5 -1o.5 acre minimum
di s tric t. :
The staff recommended no opposition to the
granting of the Use Permit as long as, the
church would not generate additional residen-
tial'develo,pment 'in the adjacent areas, since
the area was' designated for rural use on the
General. 'Plano A. sho,et discussion followed,
after, which Comm, ;,Popp made a motion to for-
ward a letter to the Sonoma County Board of
Zoning Adjustments indicating no opposition to
the request.° 'Comm.. Balshaw seconded the
motion
AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSTAINED I ABSENT 0
Comm. Waters abstained since he was not present
for the entire discussion,
2) Uan Outdoor Advertising - .Abatement of a con -
tinuing billboard vio eCtion of Chapter 26 of
the Sonoma County on'Highway 101 south
of the -City limits in a County M -1 District,
The staff,advised concurrence with the,abatement
action since the City ,requires a distance of
Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes, August 20, 1974
Page 2
1,500 feet- between billboards,,, and the bill'
board is less than 1,,. feet f another'
bill
I
_board t was also noted t a county
citizen had f1led �sui.t that, the Board of Super-
visors, had not made -adequate findiri&S the
variance to allow the sign was granted. The
court had ruled - in favor of the •citizefi.
Discuszioin followed regarding the original
granting of the variance to allow -the sign
after which Comm.. Balshaw made a mation'to for-
ward a letter to the Sonoma County' Board o
Zonin Adju.stments supporting the: action to
abate-the violation of the County code. Co#n
Wate seconded the motion.
AYES ' 6, , NOES 0 ABSTAINED 1 '=ABSENT
'Comm, Popp 4bst.ainea since he did nat,-feel
enough information wat, available regarding
the original granting of the variance which,
allowed the sign,
3) Robert Jo & Mat-ye A. McCoy - Abatement of a con-
TIL'Huing, vio lation of Chapter 26 of the
County Code, 'by maintaining a commercial use
and equipment storage yard at 2'9.1 "Thompson
Lane in a County "A" District*
The Staff ex.p,la.ined the commercial usage of the
property and the fact that neighbors had CQM-
pl,ained about the noise of 'the trucks sta-rting
and leaving &iriing late night, hours The
County Attorney had determined that :the use le
a commercial use and not appropriate for the
-agricultural, district', and the staff also felt
the use did not conform. to the rural agritul.-
tural,-o,pen space de I signation s of the City' of
Petaluma 's plans-, Comm,. Popp made a motion 'to
'forward , letter to the Sonoma Count y Board of
Zoning Adjustments I :su,ppoxting the action to
abate the violation of the County Code and
Comm. Balshaw' seconded the motion,.
,AYE 7 NOES, 0 ABSENT 0
4) First Southern Baptist Church of Petaluma Us'e
Permit to allow a:churcH - at - 1301 Ely Road, 'in a
County A-'S Di
The staf recommended no opposition to the grant
ing of the Use Permit since the church is 'an
appropriate use in the area.and would not,lik,ely
,Petaluma Planning Commiasslon Minutes', August 20 197
ge 3
generate additional residential development.
Comm. Balshaw made a motion to.forward a letter
to the Sonoma.Coun,ty Board of Zoning Adjustments°
indicating ,no opposition to the request, Comm
H.illigbss'seconded the motion.
AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0
Discussion followed regarding considering the
Sonoma County'refer�rals;on the Consent Calendar
` in the future" It was agreed to do so with
the concurrence of the Director of Community
Development
The. Commission was advised by the staff that the Final.
Map for the first unit of the: Westridge Subdivision.,
conslisting .o`f 104 single- family units, was in con -
formance the Tenta'tve'Map conditions of approval.
The Commission was further advised that the only
. - Problem at the present time was with regard to the
,park area along the - creek, since acceptable land -
s�cap:ing plans had not been finalized, This problem
would have to be resolved before the City Council
could consider the Final Map.
Jim'`Raymond, Recreation Director, presented plans.for
the park area and referenced-the Recreation Commis
Sion minutes -of August'19, 1974, He advised that
the Commission was concerned that the youth of the
development would be drawn to the creek, and without
a. barrier to retain people the creek would be a
hazard during its high peak season° If the plan
would be :approved as submitted,' the Recreation
Cbminis's on' wi -shed to retain the right to modify
the final p'lans ; insure safety. Mr. Raymond in-
forned the Commission -that the Asst. City Engineer
felt 601 slope would be adequate, but the
Recreation Commis -sign wanted their feelings known
that a- public hazard would exist. He then clarified
that both the Schollenberge'r 'Park and the Washing -
ton Creek linear park required fences as a safety
measure.
Donna Colwell, 1176 "I" Street addressed the
Commission, stating that they should listen to the
recommendations of the'. Commission since
she also considered the creek dangerous
Cotuno Waters stated that the recommendation of the
- Recreation Commisstion'to underground the creek could
prove to be hazardous because if the pipe was left
Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes, August -.1.974
Page 4 ..
open, children• could fall into it- If grillwork
was installed., it could result in collecting trash
•an& flooding of' the area; Chairman Bond also took
exception to the underground ng of the creek and
stated that the creek development has been thoroughly
disc:assed at -the Subdivision Committee meeting.
Marilyn Stitewart, 24 Seventh Street, questioned the
intent of ;Exhibit "A," written by the ci y Attorney
on May 10 , 1973, vhi eh amended the City Council.
resolution. approvi -ng the Tentative Map o Mr, Boehl j e
explained that. it, meant that the I'andscaping plan
was to be-submitted to the City and would be
developed and funded by.•the City,
Mr. tti , attorney representing the.. applicant,
advised
per would grade the.
according to the plans, and that a 6 0 l slope would
make the creek ruin slower and avol.d erosion.; He then
stated that the conditions of the Tentative4 Map had
been met., since the `land• had been dedicated to the.
City for park purposes. .and a. park development plan
had been submitted. He. therefore. did not feel
of the Final - Ma should that the approval, p d be delayed. 1
Mr o Jim Ra =ymond remarked, that the Recreation
Commission dial not have the opportunity to' 'review
the Tentative 'Map: and did mot have adequate time to
review the park development, but had to, call a
special meeting to. consider it.
Comm. Popp . asked at what 's it had been determine0
that the City would fund the park,, and Mr, Jon An
son, Engineer for the proj!e:ct., replied that it had
been at the. .City Council level o M; Be.ttinelli
further advised that there had been a' quesaion
.regarding the amount of' dedication- involved_ and a
compromise had been reached •regarding the size of
the park with the developer doing the grading if the
City would develop and- fund the park.
The density, was questioned and Mr. Jon Anderson
explained that, the original PCD called .for 40G un -it :s
but this 'amount. had been decreased. The development
would now be less than 6 units p acre wit h the
first phase consisting of 1.5 units per acre.
Timing, of the: development was, questioned., and Mr. Jon
An :der -son stated that they would like to s.t'art as
soon as possible, Mr,. Boehlje :advised that the City.•
Council had denied the,reque.ted time ektens:ion for
filing the final_ maps, for Units 1 and 2,, and that the
time limitation would expire on ° October: 16, 1974
Petaluma. Planning Cbmmission Minutes, August 20, 1974 ,
e; 5
Mrs. Lois Kana, 334 Bodega questioned the
f igure .,- of,' 104 units in the' .first phase- and how this
tel'Ated to the housing allocation system, Mr.
under the present circum-
Bo6hlje. that
stances the developer could, -develop any number of
units Approved on th Map since such
projects,, and also developments, which, were currently
- lowed to continue until a
—in,. process-, would be allowed
final , had been made by the court. Mr. Boehlje
and Mr B ettinelli clarified that 183 units had
,,,
already been approved •fort - his subdivision under
the Allocation- system from prior years
Comm. Wa-teas made_a to recommend the approval
of, the:- Final Map to the City Council, Comm. Popp-
seconded the motion:.
AYES 7 NOES 0 . 0,,
AMENDMENTS TO THE
1) Walter Kieckhefer Proper,Ly.
ENVIRONMENTALiTiESIGN
PLANS THE, GENERAL
Mt. Boe'hlje explained the Gener Plan, zoning
THE!�,CITY OF
and -EDRaesignations fore the site. He further
& N
A L
advised that, since , t - he EDR'stressed a ring
:around the west side as a park and public access
to. the river, two-alternatives of a'park con-
sitting o approximately 2 - 2-1/2 acres with
s f '
public access to the,xiver were proposed,, These
two alternatives were indicated on the map and
explained., The'staff recommended changing the
EDP designation. to "Planned. residential" with
a density of 6°'units.per acre and showing - a
sma1 1 riverf ron-t p.ark. It was, explained that a
park had been proposed because the Subdivision
Ordinance would require approximately 2-1/2 acres
for 'a project' of,- this- is1ze or in-lieu park dedi-
cation fees. Mr. -B ehlje then clarified that
ri
the -'developer did not' have : a park prop . osed on
the plans that had. been submittedo
The Hearing - was opened an Mr. Walter
mmis7sion.
'Kieckhefer addressed.the Co� I - He stated
that since the 'Council had chosen not to pur-
chase the property for -a park he'had been
instructed to do An EIR on his* development. Mr.
"Kieckhefer asked that he not be committed to the
small-'Park designation and a density of 6 units
Per acre at 'this -time before the EIR was con-
S!idered-, by the Commist . 3-on, and requested-that
the proper ty designated as "planned re'siden-
tial'.": He - added that' his plans did show paths
through the 'development and did have public
access to the river-. Mr. Boehije interjected
Petaluma Planning Commission.Minutes, August 20, 1:974
Page 6
that if :Mr... K'ie.ckhefer did not wish. to be
restricted to 6 units , per acre the proper EDP
terminology would be it residential,"
which all-ow—s. up to 10. units, per acre.
It was questioned. if, the deve-lopmen . co;uld he
on the ,court decision. Mr;. Boe,h info
considered during the eriad of the cit es appeal
rmed
the Commission -that the .City's 'legal counsel,
Mr. Robert Anderson, had advised' in writing that
any project which was in the: pro , ,ces,s: of being
reviewed should continue to be processed unless
the City is told otherwise by the court. He
also ad
ys.ed that the City .Council had not 'made
final allocation of the 500 units and the
Commission,wou.ld., therefore, have.ta proceed as
`.though , nothing had transpire& Those applicants
who had applied-under last year''s allocation sys-
tem probably would 'be invited to'reapply when the
system was reinstated,. Mr. Boehlj-e clarified
that the plan, submitted by :Mr... Kieckhefer is
.essentially the same .plan as considered by the
Residential. Development Evaluation Board... The
Commission was also advised that even if a- {
development had been - approved, by the Residential
Development Evaluation Board the Commission
would not have to approve it if it did not-
meet City o.rdnances and s andar�ds' Discussion
followed on these co:ns
It was suggested that the EDP designation not b.e.
changed until the EIR had been reviewed. Mr.
Boehlje advised that he had reviewed the pre-
lim__inary draft: EIR and there was nothing in it
that would regulate, density per s.e He, :further
advised,that what the Commission would. :have to
decide, 1S the requirement for either 6 or 10
units -per :acre, and if they did not - want a small
park to be shown in,a specific location on they
EDP.,, they would still have the option to require .
a park or in- -lieu park dedication fees at the
time. of subdivsliona General discussion indicated
that the Commission did. not wish to .include the
small. park as part of the EDP - designation at this
time
The density was questioned.and the Commission was
apprised that the plans, call.for approximately
9. units; per acre a The stafff also advised that tl�
recommendation for.,, 6 units per acre was partially
based,on prior instructions of the Commission to
limit developments to 6 units per - acre or less, and:
Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes,,Aq - ust 19..7.4. 20:19..7.4. 9
(bage: 7
partially on, the -f,ac,t, 'that the full environmental
considerations had,not been known until very
re - iiiscuss,ion followed regarding
, A, short.
the desired, density, and the 'Public Hearing
was closed,
Comm.,Balsh,aw'made. a motion to change the EDP
designation I from " park" to. "urban residential,'!
and Comm.Popp seconded the motion.
A T.. NOES 0, ABSENT 0
2) kcNear Is landr Peninsula
Mr. Leo'Rachal, Special Project Planner,
ddd;res� , sed the- Coumiissi-on informing them that
bee,ause of the greater commercial emphasis
indicated by the . Planning 'Commission at the study
session on `July. -1974,, further evaluations
had been made 01 the subject peninsula - island
Five zombined, commercial. and open-space type
usages.,,wer, etherefore proposed as alternates, and
Mr. Radha briefly reviewed these uses, He
advised that the fourth alternative, for
commercially oriented recreation appropriate
to the C-,C District with a large. open - space
park and nature study, area, would be the most
en i
b - efcial tb,, the_ City ,and ; would provide a
far - reaching open.space endowment for the
communi-.Wz future. , Cow.. Mattei clarified
that the. City Council had recommended the
purchas.e'of the property only if it were
economically feasib-lei..,
The Publ,ic Hearing was opened.
A recess was called Iled at .9<23 p.m. And the meeting
resumed at,9.35 p.m.
Mr Jim Raymond,, 'Recreation Director, explained
that St-ate Bond. monies would be available f or the
purchase of this property, and
tion ha be made at this because of the
need to file an appli on. prior to September
15, 1;974, if the.funds were desired,. The
Recreation, Commission. had recommended. the 'purchase
of the property because ,ofIts value to the City
Bond asked to hear
and ifs location,. ChAirman.
from the and Mr. Brad McNear
addressed the Commission. He stated that he
i -
had other plans for his portio n of the property
,
and asked why the City was in such a hurry to
purchase the land for a park. Mr,. Raymond re-
plied,that the decision to purchase would have
Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes, August 20, 19`4
Page 8
to be ,made: within the next year since the
priority must be designated by June, 1.975
or 10% of the monies will be lost. If no
designation is bade. by June,, 197:6., the entire.
amount would: be lost.° He added that if the
project is :no;t feasible:, the money would. be
used for an alternate 'project on "the_ east side
of town Mr. .McN,ear stated' that he had Plans'
for a concrete block manufacturing facility,
which would fit in with the surrounding Indus-
'trial uses, and wished the island to remain in
A Study ,Area..
Mr. Ray Rickey, General Manager of Santa Fe
Pomeroy,.-Ince, read a. letter to on
concerning the report submitted by the staff°
This letter showed concern that the:estab.lish-
ment - of a :small, boat marina would not be, com-
patible.with the 'commercial activity on the river,
and that 'the existing commercial /'indust-ra:l
facilities and the community could be jeopar-
dized by'the implementation of a recreational
area. . The company` also felt that curtailment of•'
'commercial, 'tr;aff,c on the river could affect the
participation by the Corps of Engineers for the
continued: dredging of the river. Tn closing,
the company requested, that all aspects of the
matter be investigated prior to any commitments,
and - th °a,t, firm assurances be provided to the
owners and land' users to protect. and preserve
the investments and-community benefitsi now exis't-_.1g..
Mr. Rickey stated, that the report, made very ji zle
mention of coots. He felt that to reach the
goals indicated development would run into
several millions of dollars, and the actual
acquisition woLSld,'anly be a small portion. of
the expense. Mr Rickey then presented a letter
from Mr'. Royce Van Bebber, of Van Bebb'er Brou
ther.s,, Inc. ,. 'which was read to the Commiess ono
This ,letter &ta.te:d that it was- felt that the
highest and best use of the land would be
something of an. industrial nature, that an
industry which was .comme,rcially oriented to the
river.would insure future dredging, which in
turn: enhance -recreational boating, Mr, Van
Bebber asked that further study ,should be done
before proceeding to .use the land for park and •.
recreational.purpose a
1
pe:taluma ,Planning.
Commiss' on Minutes', - .August .:2,0, :197:4:
ge 9
Mr. Allan. Buckmann�, Wildlife.Biologist for the
r.
"
D 'f Fish &'Game address the Com-
mission, stating that, he concurred with the
staff. recommendations on Alternative #4.
He, informed the Commission, that the Department
Of Fish &.Game has been concerned about the loss
of historic tidelands and that the loss of marsh
habitat is of"' primary concern to endangered
species of;wildl:ifeo The Department of Fish
&. Game, there °fore 'recommends to the City of
;.
Petaluma- that, thi °s " resource. base be re- est- ablished .
for eeologic` production by its restoration
A& a tidal, mar -sh., Mr. Buchmann stated that he
doubted, that ,fti rthie'r study would have any fur-
ther consequence-from an environmental stand-
,,point, Mro.Buchanan was asked. if this develop-
ment would have ',significant impact on the
ecology :of the river, And he replied that it
would make a "dif'ference�, but how much could not
be known. 'He.explained that any one site may
not have. an impact, but if the composite ,s
considered, it woul'd have an impact and would
be signifi'can.t for endangered species. Mr.
B "u"chmann was questioned about using the money
to purchase other not'. ;s:o exp.ensive acreage, and
he; agreed that this; was pos ible, but this
property was, in the ,middle of the -river and
would be an.excel,lent ecology area, He added
that it was a question of` values, since them-
imten..was to retain historic tidelands° Mro
Buchmann stated that' when you are dealing
with environmental matters, you cannot trade.,
since once a. resource .is gone it is gone,
Mr. King asked if trees would grow in this a
and Mr. Buchmann ".replied that he. did not know.
Mt o, King stated, that it contained bog conditions,
and he had doubts`'if a park could be made out
of it,' Mr',, . Buchmann remarked that -he was
talking about 'the ,re- estab'lishment. of marsh7
lands,. to 'which Mr; King replied he did `not feel
it would be economically feasible,
Mr. Bob Koenitter informed the Commission that
some people `fiave.,misconcepti:ons .of the island
that. it was actually, a. man -made canal. He did
not feel - the stability of the ' soia should-be
questioned sih'ce soil of this nature has been
made stable in, the past.. Mr. Koenitzer dis-
agreed " wlth the findings of the staff and stated
he did' not .find any facts to support them,
The public Heating, was closed.
P,eta, , luma, Planning Commis.sidh -Mi. Auguat. 20, 1.974
Page 10
Comm. B lshaw st , ate4 that he did not feel the
Council would be agreeable, to retaining marsh-
lands, and he felt the development'of a park
was, ;n4pprop.riate,be of the great deal of
money y needed to develop the property and because
of: its surrounding' industrial view, Comm.
Matte'i remarked that he would 'be in favor of
retaining etaining this area in a "Study Area" if It is
not, economically fp4 ble t purchase th
a si o e I
prop.e He a1sa' 'felt .that property owners
sdhould be contacted in the near 'future _regarding
`their, plans and intentli6n.s, before 'any, further
,consideration of'the EDP desIgpation,. Mr. Raymond
remarked that he-wbuld like to meet with the
owners . informally and planned, to do so
Comm. Waters made - a motion to retain the M&Near
Island /Peninsula in -a "Study Area" and te-examine
the area within nine months, Comm, BaIshaw
seconded the '-motion.
Mt. MdNary, r6pms,enting Brad MeNear, suggested
that the designation should not be re-examined
until the City or State made a determination.
Mt... Leo, RAchal was commended. by Mr. 8oehlje and
Chairman Bond for the extensive research, and
work that went, into the presenta-tion of this
Study Area
3), North. McDowell Hold"inaZone.
-
Mr. Boeh'lje advised ''the Commission- that' the
addendum staff report discussed ttaff genera--
tion..' 'The staff - still! recommended the area for
' tesId with the encouragement to
use the pro erty, if
p P _possible, for 'housing for
the e He 'explained that-,, regarding the
reversion to - original zon-ing for the ten acres
res
of commercial property adjacent to the 'holding
zone, , the former CitYAttorney had determined
that L Since. the reversionary clause was not in
the, Zoning; Ordinance - at the, time of the e,xpira-
tion date for this piece of property, this clause
could not be enforced.. A brief discussion
followed and the` C
qmmisslon.directed the staff
to ask the new City Attorney if he concurred in
City y
:this opinion.
The Fublic, Hearing' was ' opened. Mj:'6 John'J. Ki
representing Maria Novak,,, addressed the Commis-
sion to protest any change 'to the EDP designa-
tion at this time He, stated that, he felt that
Pe.ta;luma Planning Commission Minutes, August .2'0,
19'74
�zg,e 11
urban density residential -was not feasible,
since there was no way that 1.0 units per acre
could be developed economically enough to be
utilized for housing fo,t.the elderly. Comm
Balch' mentioried`a HULA program under which
this purpose co.uld''be feasible without having to
settle for substandard�bous ng., Mr. King ad-
vised. that Mr., .Novak dil. - not have p l ans for the
comznefcia holding . zone site but did have
some inquiries on the acres of commercial
adjacent to the site. He, concluded by saying
that the only way to eliminate the problem of
too much traffic would be to develop it
commerciall . y and thereby require the developer
to put in'the necessary public improvements.
Rev. Don Moore, pastor of the existing church,
stated that although his church was too small
at its present site to adequately serve the
community, he could not, afford to bring sewer
lines down to it. He therefore was interested
in.the land adjacent to the church being developed
as- soon possible in order that his church
could reach out to the community. Rev. Moore
requested that the designation be ,changed-to
commercial if it could not be retained as a
commercial holding zone.
The Public Hearing was closed,
Comm. Bal_shaw stated , that -he wished to defend
the urban residential designation, since housing
for the elderly was desperately needed in Pe,t-
a'lumao Also, the EDP states that -high density
residential development should be put near parks
in ,order to ut'l.ize the open space, -and this
area is across from Luchessl Park. He did not
feel that commercial devehopment would be
suitable adjacent to a park, and remarked that
it was also City policy to °build up the down
town core area. Comm. Balshaw -moved to accept
the staff recommendation for "urban residential."
The motion died for lack of a second
Comm.. Matted made a motion to retain the area as
a commercial ,holding zone. The motion.was
seconded by Comm. Popp,
AYES 5 NOES' 2 ABSENT 0
OTHER BUSINESS; Comm. Balshaw informed the Commission he had
been told that Golden Gatet'Transit would be
Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes, August 20, 1974
Page, 12
uti,liz1h the Petaluma Industrial Park in their
base or operations, Mr. Boehlje replied he
had not.been made aware of this possibility,
but he would check it out with the City. Engineer,
ADJ6U., , RNMENT,. There,being to further business the meeting
adjourned at ll 05 p.m.
Cli-irman
Attest