Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/03/1973•r• _ A A G N D A' sPETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3., 1973 REGULAR MEETING 7:30 p,. CITY .COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUNIA, CALIFORNIA PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG POLL CALL.: 'Comm. Balsllzi.w Bond, Daly Hood Sclime1z 17a ers PUpp STAFF:. William C. McGiver.n, Director of Community Development Richard D. A. Anderson, Assistant Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE ENVIRONMENTAL 1. Architect'ure',' Inc.. proposal for. a 9,2-unit multi - ASSESS:MENT family apartment complex to be .located at STATEMENT 150 Mactnol,i.a Ave. EVALUATIONS: 2. Sunco Development Corp. proposed Sun Terrace Park P : U.D. Development in area of East Washington and Ely Blvd. (Continued) _ 3. Lieb n Quaresma representing Boulevard Bowl for -expansion of existing bowling alley and addition of shops and, offi.ce,s at 1,100 Petaluma Blvd. So. in a C -H (,Highway, Commercial) District. SITE DESIGN;AND 1. Lieb & ouaresma representing Boulevard Bowl for. VARIANCE REVIEt ^? expansion of existing bowling alley and addition COMMITTEE REPORTS: of, of_ shops and offices at 1100 Petaluma•Blvd. So., -in a (Highway. Commercial) District, 2. Lieb & Quaresma Boulevard. Bowl for variance request to allow a reduction in required parking spaces from a maximum requirement of 2:26 parking spaces to 221 spaces for expansion of existing bowling alley and addition of shops and offices at -1100 Petaluma Blvd. So. 3. McPhail's .Inc.. further design review of sign plans and landscape plan for new site at 1000 Lakeville St. in a M -L (Limited Industrial) District. 4. Motel 6 proposed site design for a 62 -unit motel to'be located off U.S. 101 Freeway, adjacent on the north to Sonoma Joe's Restaurant in a M -L (Limited Industrial) District. T -` w _ P- lanning Commission Agenda, January 3, 1073 SUNCO'DEVELOPMENT Continuation . o:f Public Hearing to consider an applica- CORPORATION ti,.on filed by Sunco Development Corp. for rezoning REZONING Z9 -7`2 from R -M- 1,500 (Multi- family Residential) District to a P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development - R -M= 1,500) District on property located in the area of E. Washington St. and Ely Blvd., OTHER BUSINESS: Presentation to the Planning Commission for the purpose of. setting a Public Hearing to consider the rezoning request submitted by Walter_ Kiekhefer from a M -L ALimited Industrial) District to a C -C (Community Commercial) District for a nropos'ed shopping complex entitled "The Winery" to be Incaterl at the northwest corner of Washing- ton ane. Lakeville Streets. Presentation to the Planning Commission for the purpose of setting a Public Hearing to consider the prezoning request for property ]mown as Casa Grande Annexation #1 located in the area bounded on the east by Ely Road South, on the south by Casa Grande Road, on the west by South M Dowell Blvd., and on the north by the present City limits. ADJOURNMEIIT s- -2- TTALUMA :CITY PLANNING REGULAR 'MEET1,NG *CITY COtZTCIL iCHAMBE RS, M I N U T E S COMMISSION CITY HALL JANUARY 3 1973 7:30 P.M. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm. Balshaw, *Bond, Hood, Popp, *Schmelz, Waters *Comm. Bond arrived at 9:00 p.m.; Comm. Schmelz at 7:40 p.m. ABSENT: CORO. r)aly STAFF: T C. McGivern, Director of Community Development Ric'har6 D. A. Anderson, Associate Planner. APPROVAL or The minute's of . December 19, 1912 were approved as MINUTES: submitted with the following change. On page.3, regarding Behrens.-Nelson & Mackey's Environmental Assessment Statement Evaluation, Comm. Balshaw seconded the motion, not Comm.. Schmelz. CORRESPONDE'NCE- Mr. McGive­rn announced that proposed, guidelines governing Environmental impact Reports had been received from the State. An analysis will he pre- pared for the perusal of the City Council and the '01anning Commission. Cities and counties have the opt of continuing any present program they have in operation if they wish to do so, and the City Council prefers we proceed as before. - COTJNTY 1. 1 the applicant, Sam M. imoto, requested a variance REFERRALS, for a lot split 'which would result in one lot being approximately 1.4 acres in size, at Eastman Lane in an "U" Unclassified District. The Planning staff recommended opposition, to this request. The area for consideration is rural_ in character and the proposed -variance could result in a trend toward undesirable urbanization. Comm.. Balshaw made the motion that -a letter in opposition to this variance,be forwarded to Sonoma County, and Comm. flood seconded the motion. AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3 2. The applicant, David E. Dexter, requested a variance to allow a.sixth dwelling unit on pro- perty less than 180,000 sq ft at 178 Horn Ave., in an "A" Agricultural 'District. The Planning staff recommended opposition to this request because, the density is already higher than is appropriate for this rural location and the Tetaluma Cit Planning Commission Minutes., January 3, 1973 surrounding area is definitely rural in nature. Comm., Waters made'the motion that in v iew of the fact that this request was in n conflict with the EDP, that a letter of opposition should be for- warded to Sonoma County., Comm. Balshaw seconded the motion. AYES 4*'NOES 0 ABSENT 3 3. The, applicant, Edwin J. Murphy, requested a use pn permit to allow the expansion of a commercial storage facility and reduction in rear yard at 1904 Middle Tti�io'Rock Road, in an "U" Unclassified District.- Mr. Anderson explained that this pro- posed' building would be an additional storage building to be utilized for storage of boat and recreational vehicle storage, and for temporary. storage of household goods. It appears to be appropriate iri the rural location since it would generate very little traffic, the existing build- ing would, screen the new.building from the property adjacent to the side, and the adjacent owners did not object to the proposed yard reduc- tion. The staff therefore recommended no opposi- tion be made to this use permit. Comm. Waters voiced Objection indicating the EDP and General Plan showed this area-for -rural use and the requested usage would be commercial, and Comm. Hood agreed. A discussion ensued regarding the use, designation,, after which Comm. Hood made the motion that.a letter be forwarded to Sonoma County opposing the use permit. Comm. Tlaters seconded the motion. AYES 5 NOES_ 0 ABSENT 2 ARCHITECT17POY." I11C.- The applicant proposes a 92-unit multi- family apart- El TV I RONME i. -7 f T. ment complex to be located at .1.50 Magnolia Ave. Mr. ASSESSMENT Anderson read the staff report which stated the Envir- STATEIMFNT o nm e n't a 1 As Statement was found to be correct EVAL 1i 10 N thp sious consideration should be b,. - staff; however given to thb.density allocation for the development at the time the site design..is He went on to explain that the developer on this project had pre - viously been Simonds Construction Company. Mr. McGivern interjected that the City Council took official action to transfer the change of name to the present owner. Comm. Bdls-haw inquired if the develop- meht had been previour-sly up for site design review. Mri Anderson answered that it had, however, some changes had been, made by the new developer in site de,siqn and one unit had ) eliminated. It would therefore have to go back before the Site Design Committee. J4 -2- F Petalurn City Planning Commission Minutes,. January 3, 1973 Comm. Balshaw felt that if F finds the development substandard, as indicated in the staff report,, he felt they were right and that the Planning Director should 'he directed to work with the deve loper to see �that At meets 'FIIA qualifications, Mr. MCGivern a§s,ured him 1:111at the site desigri Would be gone over very (. and the main factor would be compliance wl. of , 4r ow�n zoning ordinance. Ct Tl.odd .mcaae i.,he motion that the Environmental Assessment StAterient be acce d as having no signifi- cant environririental. ix� .?act and Corm, . Balshaw seconded the motion AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 info=ed CoMittission that the Environ- mental Assessment Statement and the substantiating report submitted were correct and ' it was the recommen- dation of - the 1.' staff that they be accepted as such Comm. Balshaw commented that it was the policy of the City to preserve drainac-Tpa. channels and that at the last meeting the applicant said he had slides and other information available. Comm. Balshaw felt this information. should he pre; rented before a decision was mace. -3- 'L*N SUNC() .,he a6plicant, Suxicc)'Dev corpo'ra� proposes CORPORN a ?.V,,D. .(Stun Terrace Park) in the area of East Wash- ENVI R.0NIk-IF:I ington and El"y Road. At the December 3.9 th, 1973 ASSESSMENT STATE- meetinq of tl Planning CommiasIon the staf report MENT EVALUATIONI: had been read and questions ?qe're raised about the development of the creek. Mr.. Anderson presented two letters to the I'lanninq Commission regarding develop- ment of the creek. The first letter was from Elton- Kirkpatrick & Associates and directed to Mr. Ken Paulsen,. U—S. Equities, stating that in their opinion in order for thewa creek to handle the design flows, some creek improvements would have to be provided to- protect the project. The second letter was directed to the "Plannina Derartment. frort the Sonoma County Water Agency, and essentially stated that the natural amenities of the creek would be preserved where possible; however, where seri,o I us channel size or erosion doficiencies: arise'.,.it would be necessary to ask the developer to make corrections so that it would satisfy - their criteria for acceptance of future mainte- nance responsibility. I info=ed CoMittission that the Environ- mental Assessment Statement and the substantiating report submitted were correct and ' it was the recommen- dation of - the 1.' staff that they be accepted as such Comm. Balshaw commented that it was the policy of the City to preserve drainac-Tpa. channels and that at the last meeting the applicant said he had slides and other information available. Comm. Balshaw felt this information. should he pre; rented before a decision was mace. -3- 'L*N V Petaluma City Planning Commission-Minutes, January 3, 1973 Mr. McGivern requested that if the presentation was, to be made at this time,. that it would be included as part of the recor'a for the PUD rezoning hearing. Chairman Popp asked the Commissioners ;to take a vote on acceptance of the material to be presented to be included in the consideration of the PUD rezoning. AYES 13 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 Mr. Xen Paul se U, S. Equities, took the floor repre- sentifty Sunco aricl showed slides of the various areas of the creek,. Co=q. Lialshaw felt that the continuity of the creek, should be mainta.ifted and also pathways provided. Mr.; Pfai,%lsen stated he would not object to granting pedestrian aocess for public right -of -way if Sonoma County Water, Agency would agree. Comm. Balshaw expressed - the need* to discuss the matter further when the rezoning - was considered. Comm. Waters felt that whatever happened something should be done to prevent erosion. Comm,. Waters made the motion that the Environmental Assessment Statement and 'the sub,stantiating'report be accepted as being correct and having no significant environmental impact and Comm. Hood seconded the motion. AYES 5 NOES 0 AB8ENT 2 SUNCO DEVELOP'VIENT Chairman Po''pT.) opened the contl nua�i6n of the Public 'CORPORATION Hearing, and Mr. Anderson presented a synopsi.s of the -RE ZONIN(I 4 9-7 - staff report which reccliunended approval of the proposed development ,subject to req►irements as outlined. Chairman Popp asked the applicant if he had. anything to add, and Mr, rrank, LaPointe, President of Sunco Development Corporation, introduc'ed Mr. Ken Paulsen of U. S. Equities, 1.., was to give the presentation. Mr. Paulsen showec slides, of various developments, using them as e.xamT,.)J.9s' to illustrate what was planned to lie accomplished in the Sun Terrace Park development. !He added that in accordance with one of the proposed requirements listed in the staff report, additional parking could Le lh:,rnished at the Club I-louse. Mr. Tom baak C11arles Dmlk & Associates, the arch.i.tects for this development, then gave an oral presentation utilizing a drawing of 'the site to illustrate what was proposed for the development. He alto explained the development of the creek and Ar Pauls furthe r explained that the creek would be maintained in its natural state wherever possible. -4- F� Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, January 3, 1973 Chairman Popp asked if there were any questions or objections from' the audience,. Mr. Paul - LeSage of 220:5 Mari Lane took the floor and stated that five home owners from the Garfield area were present. He inquired about the proposed units and told they were to be :sold as condominiums and.w * ould-e8timate to be priced at $25,000 to $30 Also, the recreational facilities would only be for, residents of the development. Mr. Prank Laughran of 29 Garfield Drive ' expressed concern about lack of recreational facilities and the over crowding of the schools. Mr. Tom Lonq,of 2261'Park.land Way asked what future development there would be in,the airport area and Chairman Popp told'him there ' would not be any.. 'Mr. McGiv6kn further explained that as long as the airport - Would dontinue to be that area would remain open. Comm. Balshaw informed the CommissIon that the property, had been sold to Simonds from Sausalito ,with.the condition that the airport would be allowed to operate for five years. Chairman Popp closed the public hearing,and asked if there were any questions from the Commiss Comm. S asked what sufficient parking would be necessary for the Club House. Mr. McGivern explained that it was-felt additional parking spaces should be provided in a ratio that would provide quest parking in accordance with the ordinance. Mr.. Anderson further explained that this matter was not too definite at this time as size and use of the building would have to be taken into consideration and this would be resolved in future design review. Comm. Schmelz expressed concern that encouragement of use of automobiles would only tend to create- air pollution and he felt bicycle paths might be more appropriata. Mr. McGivern explained that use,of automobiles was not encouraged, however, plans had to be made tee take care of those vehicles that were expected to be there,, and at the time of site design this problem would be resolved. Comm. Hood did not feel that the exam of units shown truly expressed the plans the developer had submitted for consideration and that difficulties would occur in site design as far as setbacks space between buildings, 'tarn around areas, and Fire Depart- ment requirements. He felt that the concept was great,'but the area was too crowded. -5- Petaluma City hin Minutes, January 3, 1973 Comm. Balshaw asked if 'there was a provision for continuity of bicycle paths to the undeveloped portion and Mr. Paulsen said ' there was. Comm. I B 'h I als aw also queried if the creek would be a public right-of-way and Mr. Paulsen said it could be. Mr. IvIcGivern interposed that this could be resolved between now and. the site design review or could be a condition of approval. C6mm. Dalshaw commented that some buildings seemed to be less than 24 feet apart and also that recrea- tional areas were not available on the east side, and he asked if a portion of the undeveloped area cotld be Used for this purpose. Mr. LaPointe answered that this area in-the path of the airport was not a safe 'Place for a playground, and Also that they had provided more recreational facilities than single-fami] dwellings. He also stated more space is proposed )etween the buildings than conventional single-family units. The meeting recessed at 9:30 and resumed at 9:40. Chairman Popp asked if there were any further questic.)ns. Comm. Balsh'aw asked what latitude we had in the site design As far as affecting the number of units or alter the spacing. Mr. McGivern informed the Commis- sion that tonight they would have to resolve the maximum aximum density criteria for the'development. He further stressdd that this is. the only way the architect and developer could.come up with a final product that would be acceptable to the Commission. Mr. MdGivern also stated that to go into major revision of the plan at this time would not be appro- priate. At the time.-of filing the tentative map and site design there would be considerably more latitude in .deigning the final development product'. Mr. McGivern again stated that density would have to be resolved this evening. Comm. Hood felt the buildings were too close and suggested that 10 units per acre be the maximum. Chairman Popp asked for comments frori the developer o.n.this point raised by the Commission. Mr. LaPointe answered that if there was too much open space the selling price would be too high; and . that to reduce the density to 9 or 10 units could kill the project. Petaluma City. Planning Commisslion minute January 3, 1.973 Ile also stated that they were trving to work within the ordinance and had already redluced the number of units. Comm. flood stated that it had been proposed in the EDP that the surrounding area of the neighborhood 1..Youlcl average out 6 to the acre, and that a high densitv %., throw off the balance for future developers in - the area. Mr. LaPointe. referred to previous discussion on this matter on June 5, 1972 - and that the City Attorney had furnished an opinion. Fie also stated that they were asking for a down zoning, not an increase' (meaning less density) . 'r. Anders'on. read the S- Design Review Committee report recommending approval of the site design for expansion'of. the bowling alley at 1100 Petaluma Blvd. So. to include the addition of shops and offices. Chairman P.00P r C * e4 „if there were qpestions from 71 U 0 the audience an(-'., no response was given. Comm. Hood made the motion that - the site design be approved _proved with conditions as Cited,, and that the exact location of the t , ,lo driveways be determined by the Fire Chief and the City Enrjincier, Comm,. Balshaw seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 Al"ISEN 1 .-7- Chairman T made the motion Chat the rezoning he approved pro the applicant does not exceed 9.4 units rex acre, and Comm. Balshaw seconded the motion ® A Y "I �" 3 5 'LN1 0 E S 1 ABSENT 1 L'IEB 1A fir.. Anderson read the. report recommending accept- R F P E F: 1"i Vince of th`e-- Environmental As:sessment Statement as B'OULE'V, RD having no sianificart environmental impact regarding the exT,�aiision oil the existing alley and addi- S S E 1 ; S.KE ray W r A TEI -1. 'E t Y r IC tion of shops and offices. Comm. Hood made the motion that the Environmental Assessment Statement be EVtUUATIONT: a c c e p ted. as having no significant en'�rironmental imp_ act and Comm. Balsnaw seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 LIEB & QU12 Mr. Dick Lieb of Lieb & Quaresma spoke regarding the P !:., P R E S E N "I. I NC, two driveways involved and stated he would like to T30ULEVAY6') work out their exact locations with the Fire Depart- SITE DGi P11 ES'IL ment and the Ci Engineer. COMM 'r. Anders'on. read the S- Design Review Committee report recommending approval of the site design for expansion'of. the bowling alley at 1100 Petaluma Blvd. So. to include the addition of shops and offices. Chairman P.00P r C * e4 „if there were qpestions from 71 U 0 the audience an(-'., no response was given. Comm. Hood made the motion that - the site design be approved _proved with conditions as Cited,, and that the exact location of the t , ,lo driveways be determined by the Fire Chief and the City Enrjincier, Comm,. Balshaw seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 Al"ISEN 1 .-7- Petal,uma'C--ity Planning Commission Minutes, Jan'tiary 3, 1973 'W EB QUARESMA A variance had been'. requested to allow a reduction in PRESENTING required parkincT spaces from a maximum requirement BOULEVARD DOWL - of 226 to 2.21 for expansion of the existing bowling VARIANCE REVIEW alley and. addition of shops and offices at 1100 Peta- COMMITTEE REPORT: luma Blvd,.'So. Mt..Anderson rea:d,the Committee report recommending approval of the variance. Comm. Waters made the motion that the variance be approved and Comm. Hood seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSE1 I MCPHAIL'S IVC1. Applicant requested furtheir design review of'sign SIa'E DESTGN kEVIEW plans and landscape plans which were conditions cited COr PPEPORT: on original landscape plans for a new site at 1000 Lakeville St. approved on June 20, 1.972 by the Plan- ning Commission. Mr. Anderson read the Site Design Review Committee report recommending approval of the sign plans and landscape plans. Comm. Balshaw queried if landscaping was of substan- tial size. A review of the,iandscape plans by the Commissioners followed and was acceptable to them. Comm. Hdo(l made the motion that the site design be approved and Comm. Water seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 Anderson read-the.Site Design Review Committee report recommending approval with conditions, and furnished a view foil showing site location. Comm. Balshaw wished to know if the sign plans would be reviewed again and Mr. Anderson informed him the plans for signing were in accordance with the zoning ordinance and for approval by the Planning Director. Mr. McGivern stated that the new zoning ordinance has very stringent requirements with regard to sign- inq. Comm. Schmelz made the motion that site design be approved with cond.itipns as cited and Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 OTHEP _ 1 30SINESS: Mr. McGiVerh informed the commission that all the material had been made available to them with regard to a request submitted by Walter Kiekhefer for rezoning from a M-L (Limited Industrial) District to .MOTEL "6" 1 TE Applicant is proposing a 6.2-unit motel to be located DESIGN REVIE off 'U. S. 101 Freeway, adjacent on the north to 'COD-41MITTEE REPORT: Sonoma Joe's Restaurant in a M-L, District. Mr. Anderson read-the.Site Design Review Committee report recommending approval with conditions, and furnished a view foil showing site location. Comm. Balshaw wished to know if the sign plans would be reviewed again and Mr. Anderson informed him the plans for signing were in accordance with the zoning ordinance and for approval by the Planning Director. Mr. McGivern stated that the new zoning ordinance has very stringent requirements with regard to sign- inq. Comm. Schmelz made the motion that site design be approved with cond.itipns as cited and Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 OTHEP _ 1 30SINESS: Mr. McGiVerh informed the commission that all the material had been made available to them with regard to a request submitted by Walter Kiekhefer for rezoning from a M-L (Limited Industrial) District to I% Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, January 3, 1973 a C-C (Community Commercial) District for a proposed shopping complex entitled "'The Winery" to be located at the northwest corner of Washington and'Lakeville Streets. He recommended to the Commission that a Public Hearing be set for the next regular meeting. A are-at deal of discussion followed regarding the proposed rezoning designation for this property and other' property in the same area. The question arose if it would be best to rezone the entire area as a wh6le rather than individual requests, and Chairman Popp felt that this might he an injustice to the developer. He asked the developer his opinion on the matter and. Mr. Hill., representing the applicant, stated it would be in his best interest to have the rezoning held as soon as possible and not to hold off on it for possible inclusion of other area rezonings. Comm. Salsbaw queried if adjacent Jacent property owners would be no�ified and Mr. McGivern informed him that property owners within 5.00 feet of the proposed rezoning would be notified and also it. would be published in the paper. Mr:. McGivern advised the Commission that he would look into the rezoning desig- nation further, and if at the time of the Public Hearing it was decided the designation of C-C was not appropriate, it could be recommended to be changed at that time. The Commission agreed to have the Public Hearing at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commis on, January 16, 1973. Mr. McGivern informed the Commission that all the material had been made available to them regarding the pre of the property known as Casa Grande Annexation '11"1.and recommended to the Commission that a Public Hearing be set for the the next regular meeting. He further explained that the property must be prezoned to be presented to LAFCO for annexation of the prope'rty to the City. The Commission agreed to have the Public Hearing at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 16, 1973.. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.