Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/01/1974E A G E N D A Al � �ETALUMA CITY .P-LANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, GUL`AR MEETING PE P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,, CITY MALL PETALUMA, PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL: Comm. Balshaw Hilligoss Mattei Popp Waters Bond STAFF: Frank B. Gray 'Director of Community Development Dennis 3dehlje, Senior Planner 1974 CALIF'OR111A CONSENT CALENDAR: T) 'yJayne - Site De sign Review application or commercial r.emodel. , ng of structure at 345 i.. Petaluma Blvd, North. 2,) Sonoma Count Referral - Robert J. McCoy - Use Permit °app -c ^anon to'. a ow. t "e storage and parking of poultry service equipment at 291 Thompson. Lane in an Agricultural District, FREE WILL ±BAPTIST: Variance consideration to allow a free-standing CHURCH - VARIANCE: interior illuminated identification sign for a church to be 16 feed hi h with a nominal area _ g' of 30 square feet,. to be located at 200 Ely Blvd, South. CA_SA DE ARROYO - Public Hearing to consider rezoning application REZ014ING Zg -74: from " A ll Agricultural District and R- 1- 10,000 Ore- family Residential. District to Planned. Unit District for approximately 44,95 acres located on the northerly side.of Lakeville Highway be- tween Casa Gr:ande.Road and Frates Road. ANNUAL REVIEW &. Public Hearing to Consider the Annual Review and' UPDATE OF:THE Update of the Housing Element of the General HOUSING EIEb1ENT; Plan for the City of Petaluma. ADJOURNMENT YY M I N U T E S PETALUMA:CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 1, 1974 REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, C`I.TY - HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT:: Comm. Balshaw, Bond,, Hilligoss, Mattei, Popp, Waters ABSENT: None STAFF: Frank B. Gray, Director of Community Deve lopment Dennis Boehl,j.e, Senior Planner APPROVAL;OF MINUTES: The minutes of September 17, 1974,were approved as ,submitted. ANNUAL ELECTION OF S °fnce the first meeting in October each year OFFICERS:; is for the election of new officers,; Chairman Bond asked for a motion to nominate a new Chairman and Vice- Chairman. Comm. Waters nominated Comm. Hilligoss for Chairman and Comm., Balshaw for Vice - Chairman. Comm,: Popp seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous. Chairman Hilligoss then chaired the remainder of the meeting. Councilman Mattei informed the Commission that he ,felt Comm. Bond had done an excellent job as past Chairman and he wished to commend him for his service. He also stated that he would inform the Council of this commendation. CONSENT CALENDAR: l) Wayne - :Site Design Review applf- caton for commercial remodeling of a structure at.345 Petaluma Blvd. North: Comm. Bond moved that the Wayne Johnson site de sign review be removed from the Consent Calendar and returned'to the Site Design Review Committee since Wayne Johnson had not made an appearance before that Committee, at its scheduled meeting. Mr. Charles Dawson,'designer for Wayne Johnson, informed the Commission he was available for any questions. Comm. Bond replied that he..felt there were problems that,should be discussed with the appli- cant. Mr. Gray.also recommended that the .. site-design be brought back to the Commis- �Y si.on at their next meeting since an Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, October 1, 1974 aspect of public safety was involved and the Chief ,Building Inspec or had requested 'demolition of the building Comm,. Hilligoss requested that Wayne Johnson be asked to board up his building since it- was a danger. Comm.. Balshaw seconded the motion to. remove this .'item from the Consent Calendar and return -it to the, Site Design Review Committee,'and the vote was unanimous. 2) Sonoma County IReferral - Robert J. McCoy - Use Permits Application to 'allow t e storage and parking of poultry service equipment at 291 Thompson Lane in an Agricultural District: Comm. Waters made a motion to accept the staff.'s. recommendation regarding the requested' 'Use :Permit -and Comm. Balshaw' seconded the motion.. AYES 3 NOES 3 - ABSENT 0 Mr.'Gray informed the Commission that the operators of the poultry'service operation to which they 'had previously supported • a action had applied for a Use Permit.for the business; and had plans for the., operation which. ;should eliminate the problems, of noise and annoyance for the neighbors. .A-rearrangement of parking, the paving of the parking area, and a time schedule for-the hours of operation had :been submitted which the County felt would be. sufficient mitigating measures. - Disc .`f after- which, Comm., Popp made a motion to f o rward a letter to the County. stating that, if the conditions to which the neighbors had previously -objected had been mitigated, the Commission. had no objection to the grant ng of the Use Permit. Comm. Bond` seconded the motion.. AYES; 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 .FREE WILL 'BAPTIST Mr-. Gray explained the variance request and CHURCH VARIANCE that he had denied:.t administratively due to objections raised by neighbors. The applicant had there fore. zfPPealed the variance to the ��.. Planning Commission.,. -2- Petaluma City Planning Commission, Minutes October. 1, .1974 - Pastor , Carl, Young informed the Commission that it would be. difficult to see a lower sign because of the 5 -f6ot high fence , Along Washingtonttrqet adjacent to the site and the 8: -foot_ height of the property across, Ely Blvd,. He also, stated that when Wa shington will be Street is. he 'requited to construct a - 3,-foot fence to screen the parking area along that street, which would. also make i . dif ficult, to see a lower sign. Past6r Young added that. he :fe'lt lighting in the vicinity wis 'needed and the illuminated sign would provide it,. Numerous rdsidehts"in the area, Flora Brewer, Cliff-, Cole,.Roberta Gillespie, Betty Edwards, and Irmgard Augustin, addressed theCommission and voiced their objections to the ptopospd sign- They .felt that the churth was well enough iden- tified,and did. not'need,'to be advertised, and - that thd granting of this variance might 13 - encourage other to apply for larger _ .1 signs They also objacted, to the sign being-illuminated and the height of the .,sign,. since it would be visible from a number of residences and would also disturb their view of the hills. Mr. Gray informed thO Commission - that - a.peiition had been i received,containing.signatures of 27 citizens In the - immediate area. The Commission was informed of.the sign requirements stated in the,'Zon , ing Ordinance and the conditions that the commission must find to a,variance.'Comm. Bond ques- tioned if. the kla,nning Commission onnission would have to consider the sign I it was within the limitations. of the Zoning Ordinance, And was informed that only a building permit be required in that case. Comm. Bond stated he felt the signwas' - excessive and suggested that at a smaller sign mised. Pastor Young replied. that - he would be :willing to,compromi..,e, but that a 5 -foot high sign would not be adequate;. He then clarified that there was An existing sign on the Ely Blvd,. South frontage, of the church. -.3- 0 Peta_luma,City.P`lanning Commission Minutes, 'October 1, 1974 Mr. Gray stated that -at the, time of process- ing the 'variance 'administratively a petition signed by 15 citizens `had been received; and upon notice of the appeal to the Commission a petition had been received containing 27 signatures. He .clarified that the signatures had 'been verified and read the petition to the Commission. Discussion followed. regarding reaching an agreement.which would be suitable to both.the neighbors and the church.. The neighbors were , asked for suggestions, and Mrs, Brewer stated she had no objection to the size of the sign if it would be located on the face of the. building, and Gillespie suggested inco_r- porating the sign 'in with the 3 -foot fence. Comm. Popp made a motion to grant a variance . If a compromise could be .reached.. Mr. Gray. explained' that .he had no authority`to work out a compromise if it was -not in accordance with the 'Zoning'Ordinance, but that Pastor Young could amend, his variance application if he so cho`se- A meeting with the neighbors, Pastor Young and the staff was suggested to see if a mutual . agreement could be reached. Comm. Popp with- drew his prior motion and made a motion to table_ action on the item unt =il the next meet- ing. Comm.'Waters seconded the motion. AYES 5 NOES 1 ABSENT, 0: The neighbors were informed that, a meeting would bi arranged and they would be notified as to the date and time.. The Planning Commis- sion would then consider the res.ults.of that meeting at the next meeting on October 15, 1974. CASA•DE ARROYO The Commission was requested to strike the REZONING ZS -74. portions of the staff .r.eport.pertaining to conditions of -site design review, as only the rezoning request for a Planned Unit District for 44.9.5 acres located on the northerly side of Lakeville Highway would be considered this evening. Mr. Gray advised that - the,Commiss.on would' have to decide if the land uses and the • relation of those land uses to one another and their, relation to surrounding areas would•be -4- :Petaluma city Planning, Commission : Minutes, October 1, 1974 i appropriate. He informed the Commission that the site design review aspect would be considered at a later date. A brief review of the project was given by the staff and it was•noted that the question of abandon:ing'Old'Lakeville Highway needed to be resolved. The Public Hearing was opened and Mr. Charles Davidson, Civil Engineer and also one of the owners, addreasbdl the Commission, informing them he would•'be available to answer any questions. Comm. Bond stated he -felt a development in this area should cont-ain:'park land. The -park . aand to be dedicated to the City was indi- cated on the plan and also the proposed open space. It was clarified that all open space requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning 0rdinance had 'been met. Comm: -lshaw questioned why the specific schedules could not be considered with the PUD.rezoning so that the applicant could be tied dowh� a specific development,plano Mr. Gray:rep °lied that it had been intended to .process the site design review-and rezoning simultaneously, but site-design problems 'had arisen and the degree of details for-the entire subdi -Vi.s on were not adequate at this time. He then advised that the PUD rezoning _ could be conditioned upon site design review" and read 'the findings that must be made to re ne to a P.U'D Mr. Davidson -informed the Commission that,, in :accordance with the 'PUD ordinance, the general concepts of the plan must be followed. ,He stated that he felt it an un- reasonable burden at this time to come in with final :plans because it would ; mean the investment of a large amount of money without knowing for cer an if the project would be allowed to go ahead. 'Mr. Gray clarified ' the legal status of pro- •ceeding with the'development by advising that the application h'ad been filed at a time when .- the' Residential D'e'velopment Control System -5- Y, Y , s :Petaluma city Planning, Commission : Minutes, October 1, 1974 i appropriate. He informed the Commission that the site design review aspect would be considered at a later date. A brief review of the project was given by the staff and it was•noted that the question of abandon:ing'Old'Lakeville Highway needed to be resolved. The Public Hearing was opened and Mr. Charles Davidson, Civil Engineer and also one of the owners, addreasbdl the Commission, informing them he would•'be available to answer any questions. Comm. Bond stated he -felt a development in this area should cont-ain:'park land. The -park . aand to be dedicated to the City was indi- cated on the plan and also the proposed open space. It was clarified that all open space requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning 0rdinance had 'been met. Comm: -lshaw questioned why the specific schedules could not be considered with the PUD.rezoning so that the applicant could be tied dowh� a specific development,plano Mr. Gray:rep °lied that it had been intended to .process the site design review-and rezoning simultaneously, but site-design problems 'had arisen and the degree of details for-the entire subdi -Vi.s on were not adequate at this time. He then advised that the PUD rezoning _ could be conditioned upon site design review" and read 'the findings that must be made to re ne to a P.U'D Mr. Davidson -informed the Commission that,, in :accordance with the 'PUD ordinance, the general concepts of the plan must be followed. ,He stated that he felt it an un- reasonable burden at this time to come in with final :plans because it would ; mean the investment of a large amount of money without knowing for cer an if the project would be allowed to go ahead. 'Mr. Gray clarified ' the legal status of pro- •ceeding with the'development by advising that the application h'ad been filed at a time when .- the' Residential D'e'velopment Control System -5- Petaluma City Planning Commission ,Minutes, October - 1; 1'97*4 was.:not, legally An effect. - In accordance . with the recommendation of Special Counsel. Robert Anders.on,.the City Council, `and the staff, it was determined that the. City should process the, application. in good faith Therefore, as long as the develop- meet proceeds in an orderly fashion it would not fall under the Residential Devel- ,opment Control System. Mr.. Gray added that there was no commitment on the part of the Planning; Commission to rezone the property, but the staf.f.was obligated to process the application. Gary Stokes, Civil. Engineer and also part owner o,f the project, informed the Commis- son -that they, not wish to proceed until. they knew the land. use was acceptable and would procee& with the - Tentative Map for the duplex portion if this assurance was .'given. Mr. Boehlje 'advised the 'Commission that the applicant would be able to start the ,project until Tentative Map and.site design review approval was obtained He further advised that the PUD was tied down to a development plan., and therefore street loca - tions. and type: of structures would be". . specifically' determined gat this time. Mr. Boehlj.e, added that complete plans could not be presented at this' time 'because of the consideration of the aban-d'onment of .Old Lakeville Highway. The Commission was then shown the unit development plan and advised that elevations for the duplexes, apartments, and.Finnegan Clusters had been received. The cond °,tions. required for a Planned Unit Dis- trio were 'then read from the Zoning Ordinance., Discussion followed and clari >fication was that the development would have to be con- structed according to development plans presented this evening - Comm_. Mattei stated he did not approve of the extension of South,McDowell Slvd., and questioned what assurance was given that-the development would proceed in an orderly fashion. Mr. Gray read.the development schedule proposed; Mr:.'$tokes interjected that the development schedule as read was now six months behind schedule. Petal-uma City Planning - Commission Minutes,, October 1, 1 Comm. W aters? stated he also disagreed with the, ext , of South McDowell Blvd. unto Lakeylle Highway. Mr. bray informed the Commi�ssion that the intersection would be constructed at - a, 9.0 Angle a nd would require at s fic -ignal,'And that this determina- tion.. had been..mad as the result of a traff study. A recess was . called, at 9:3�O �pi.m.. and the meeting resumed at 4 9 1 :40 pan, - 146 ' further comments we-re'offered from the audience an d the Public Hearing was closed. The specific findinc -recommended by the .staff were read_ Mr Gray 'suggested adding thei requirement that the rezoning be subject to site and architectural design review and to the filing,and subsequent recordation of a subdivisiOn map in accordance with the requirements of Section 19=803 of'the Zoning ordinance. , Comm, Bond made a motion to approve the rezoning with the findings and condi- tion•s_ as. stated ',and Comm. Popp seconded the motion. Discussion followed regarding the proper time extension Of 'to -on South McDowell Blvd,. The Commission.was advised that if the rezoning was approved it would include this extension. AYES' 4 NOES 2 ABSENT 0 Comm'. Mattel and Co mm :Waters wished to clarify that they had voted against the rezoning because they.were not in favor of the-dxtension of' KcDowell,`glvd.6 however, they were in agreement w ' ith.the concept: of the Planned Unit District as'prese.nted., ANNUAL REVIEW S The Commission was advised that changes had been UPDATE OF'THE incorporated into the Housig"Vl n ' ement update HOUSING ELEMENT*: which.had been suggested during the Planning Commission study session. Also, the City -Attorney Attorney Robert'A - nddi7son and the City Manager had suggested-some change's. ,-7- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, October 1., 1974 The Public Hearing was opened. Comm., Baldhalw asked why the statement goals t64 of. legislation to establish a City- w=ide housing authority . . had deleted" from the Introduction. He:. was informed that this,was error s1nce•lt had never actually been a stated goal, ;and if a City-wide housing' authority would be. necessary in, the future it would be se,,t;, up in -the process -of e'stablishinq the Housing Asaistanca Progiam. -Comm. Hilligossreferred to, the' Price Analysis - stated that the compar- section- on page, 15 and isons more thoroughlyi The staff stated, they would review - this sec-' tion., - 'the minor changes 'made in the text were briefly reviewed, Mt. BoehIje then explained "the criteri&'sugigested for the Allotirig of bonus all6cat-ions for low income. housin Comm.-Watersmdvied that the Annual Review and Update of the Element be forwarded to the Council with. -recommendation for approval. Comm. Popp seconded the motion.. AYE' .6 NOES 0 - ABSENT 0 .-OTHER'BUSINESS: -Mr. Gray advised the Commission that the All day-tour of the Lafferty Ranch on Thursday hursday had been �'changed to'a three -hour tour on Thursday morning. Discussion followed regarding, the to consider various spdcIal'. planning areas - In And Around the City limits_. Mr.. Gray informed the Comm lssion­h6 wou'ld, ge artan to bring these arrange items before -the Commission at regular inter- vals... - He also informed, them that the City Attorne was 'making' up a handbook of All policies of the City so that it, cQuId,,.be referred to when necessary. The annual Planning Co'mmissioner#s dinner ,date was discussed and.set for October 26, • 1,974.-, . • . Petaluma'City."Planning Gommi"ssion Minutes, October 1, 1974 -ADJOURNMENT: Th ere being no further. business the meeting adjourned at 10:4-5 p.m.. Chairman Attest: . i .