Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/16/1973A G k' 1\ D A t�rtAtTiMA ci.,TY.PLANNING C'0Mm JANUARY 16, 1973 FIEGULAR, �M , EE , TING 7:30 P.M. C-IT7 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG POLL, CALL: Comm. Pals.h' Bon( Daly Food 77 =1 S 6 1 t 11 a t e ts T_ 0 P, STAFF,;,: W i 11 i an, C. f­1'cG1 bi'rector of CommuxA.ty Development Richa'.rd 1). A., Anderson, As�sociate Planner Appp.ovAL OF MINUTES CORRE PETALUM7. PPOPEPTIES Con.t1Lnua'tj,-n' of Pub,11c Hearing to �consider the REVTE1. oF� Envir_6nmi,­-,Nnt,al Impact Ae ort submitted in support IMPACT REPORT: �of the pr'ono'sed P.C.1D. ',(Planned Communitv) Dist-rict development located on the northeasterly si , de of takeville High.-way between Casa Grande Road and Frates Road. PETALUMA PR�OPIERT - IES Continu of Public Hearing on request for REZONING 7,18-72: rezoning '-from a R"1-10­,000 (Ohe-ramily Residen- t idl), District and "A,". (Agri cultural) District to c a . P.,.C.D. (Planned Community D_Js�trict on property 1n.,catecli-on northea:s;terly side of Lakeville High be-tween Casa Grande Road and Frates Road. YOUNG & STOKES - Continua of Publi 1 on request for T REZONING " re7on - incl from a R-1-10,0�00 (One-Family Residen- t i2a 1 1) District and "A" (1\gr,i,cultural,) District to a, CH-PUD (HIqhway C,ommercIal-Planned Un. t 'Die - ve,lop ,men�nt) D'istrict, located in the area generally bounded blr Casa Grande Road, Lakeville -HIgh�way and the southeaqt extension of South McDowell J WA I LTE KTERIIEF�ER, A-nlican.t has submitted 'a rezoning request for - hwe.s't corm��r of Wash- property located at tfte nort ASSES SMIEN.T �STATET, ington and Lakeville Streets for a T)ro, EVALUATT shop 'ing ,p comple entitled "'The Winery. dry Petaluma City Plannibg Commission Agenda,,. January, 16, 19,73 ��57�;LTEP ICSEI {I-IEFk�R - 21 Publ'ic: to consider the re q uest for rezoninc. from a,M-L (Limited Industrial) District to a C-C .(Community nity Co District for a p pro,osed shopping complex entitled "The Winery", to be located , at the northw.est corner of Tr, and La:keville Streets, CASA GRANDE 'ANNEXATION, Prorerty known as the Casa Grande Annexation #1 #1 PROPERTY - F1 -s to be considered Ifo'r. prezoning. Location of MENTAL AS13P-SSM . , r, 7 prpperty is the area bounded on the east by Ely 9 TATE 1 T EVALUATION,: Poa.d South, on the soruth by Casa Grande Road, on the viesll. b! South McDola.ell Elvd., and on the north by M present City limits. I T CASA (7, AT.R.M�YATL ION Public , Hearing to consider the prezoning request 1 #1 PmPEP'TY for property known- as Casa Grande Annexation #1 PREZONI Z2-73: located in the area bounded on the east by Ely -Road South, on the south by Casa Grande Road, on the -,rest by South T Blvd ., and on the north by the presen:t City limits. ADJOURN7 -2- N U T E S PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 16, 197.3 7:30 P.M. C I TY " .--COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT.- Comm. Balshaw, Bond, Hood, Daly, Popp,.*Wa-ters *Comm. Bond arrived,at 8:13 p.m.. ABSENT: Comm..Schmelz STAFF: Richard D. A. Anderson, Associate Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of January 3, 1973 were approved as �submitted. CORRESPONDENCE: Mr. Anderson read a letter from Sonoma County Planning Department advising that the Citizens Advi.soty C6mmittee,on apen.Space, Conservation and Recreation for. Sonoma County's General Plan request a representative from the City to partici - patelin the study and work of this committee. Meetings.will begin on January 10, 1973 and be heldevery oth Wednesday evening through June. Comm. 'Daly made the motion that the rezoning be continued indefinitely and Comm. Balshaw seconded the motion. AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 PETALUMA PROPERTIES - Continuation of the Public Hearing was held to REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL consider the. EIR submitted, 'in, support of the _MPACT REPORT: proposed Planned Community Development located on the northeasterly side of Lakeville Highway between Casa Grande Road and Frates, Road. The staff report, Chairman Popp asked the Commissioners if anyone wished to volunteer and Comm. Balshaw stated he , would act as the. representative. WALTER KIECKHEFER The applicant'had.submitted a letter dated ENVIRONMENTAL. January 16, 1973 requesting ,a continuation of the ASSESSMENT STATEMENT rezoning application as proposed (M-L, Light EVALUATION & Indus to C-C, Community Commercial) to be REZONING Z1 -73: located general , ly at the north ' west corner of Washington and Lakeville Streets. Present plans to develop the site commercially have been cur- tailed due-to unreliability of the existing building structures. New plans will be developed for the property and will be submitted at a later date, Comm. 'Daly made the motion that the rezoning be continued indefinitely and Comm. Balshaw seconded the motion. AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 PETALUMA PROPERTIES - Continuation of the Public Hearing was held to REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL consider the. EIR submitted, 'in, support of the _MPACT REPORT: proposed Planned Community Development located on the northeasterly side of Lakeville Highway between Casa Grande Road and Frates, Road. The staff report, " City Planning .Commission Minutes, January 16, 1973 was read indicating the EIR as submitted was incomplete, due to the City Engineer's questions concerning the.Lawler Water Reservoir and traffic impact. The staff recommended additional infor- mation should be provided on the questionable areas of concern or the EIR should be rejected.. It was noted that the City Engineer's report as submitted should become part of the record on this development. other than the Engineering matters of traffic and flooding of property, the staff feels the project is worthy of consideration and in accord with the Environmental Design Plan, except the commercial area was larger than indi- cated on the Environmental Design Plan. Chairman Popp asked if the applicant would like to state his position. Mr. Lounibos spoke representing the applicant. He expressed that the new. development would gener- ally benefit the City of. Petaluma because a large taxable base would be funded and streets improved, and would present a good development design. He i also added that this type of development would generate few elementary and secondary type school children. Mr. Lounibos remarked that it seemed obvious to him that an amended traffic report would have to be submitted on traffic conditions to bring it up to date. Mr. Lounibos further remarked, with regard to the possible failure of Lawler Dam, the applicant had made provisions for purchase of real property on the south side of Lakeville Highway, so that any .rain or flood waters that develop on subject pro- perty would be drawn away and across land under- neath the highway, to flow into and ; across a stream bed that will be excavated, thereby releas- ing it into the Petaluma River. He: then called upon Mr. Jon Anderson to supply further informa- tion. Mr. Jon..Anderson, Civil Engineer from MacKay & Somps,, explained that the Lawler Dam was five miles upstream from the project site and if it would fail approximately 1/2 to 2/3 of the 227 acre feet of water- would rush down the Adobe Creek with the frontal wave being initially dissipated in 3' miles of steep to mild twisting stream bed and three road crossings to the Adobe Creek Road. If -2- M P eta luma. City Planning Commission Minutes, January 16, 1,973 the wake did sustain itself to the Adobe Road, the existing 15' wide by 10' high box culvert at the Adobe Creek Road would throttle the wave and the overflow would tend, `towards the Frates Road side of Adobe Creek because of existing topographic conditions: Water surging through this Adobe Road culvert should. be contained, within the banks of the Adobe Greek on the downstream side and further throttled as it passed through two additional box culverts on Casa Grande'Road. and finally through a box culvert at the old highway. It is therefore concluded that the dam failure would cause only a temporary surge in the Adobe Creek through thin project which should be con- tained within the banks of the creek, if same were approved through Flood Controls development stan- dards for 25 -year storm. .plus the foot and a half freeboard normally required. Access water travel- ing towards Frates Road previously mentioned would flow overland down the southeast side of Frates Road towards the next easterly creek. Some water may continue down Frates Road to this project, but no more than Road could hydraulically hold, which is really no more than now travels down there under , severe flooding conditions. A dike or higher pads along the old highway may be necessary from Frates Road to Adobe Creek for this project. It was'his conclusion that loss of life or property was highly unlikely. i At the request of Comm. Hood',, Mr. Anderson clari- fied the handling of hydrologic problems by referring to.an Addendum to the EIR with attached plan entitled "Proposed Off -Site Storm Outfall- Lands of Stokes and Assoc. ", which had been presen- ted to the Sonoma County Water Agency, and.-approved by them. This Addendum; and plan was furnished the Planning Commissioners at this time for their edification. Mr. M'r. Lounibos introduced.Mr. Gary Stokes, the appli- cant, who explained to the Commission that the name of Petaluma Properties had already been taken in Sonoma County and therefore all future titling for their company would be as Young & Stokes. Mr.. Stokes asked the application for the CH -PUD rezoning by You & Stokes could not be heard at the same time as it was all initially part of the same package, The Commis ione-rs agreed to hear both r.ezonings at the. same time ,3- Petaluma, City Planning. Commission Minutes,' January 16, 1973 Comm. Daly interjected that it was his understand- ing that the rezoning could. not be accomplished until the EiR was accepted,, and he felt that as long as the EIR.bas:cally covered the property the report could be accepted. Mr. Richard Anderson added that the applicants could be informed that they would have to sa.tis;factorily compensate questioned factors in their EIR and that these items could 'be s ed. before the site design was approved. Chairman Popp likewise felt that the report could "be accepted, on the basis that the applicant satisfy the two questions regarding the EIR, namely, the water from the dam and the traffic report to which the applicant had offered to furnish an amendment. A great deal of discussion followed regarding whether the report should be accepted at this time or if further clarification should be obtained and also to the accuracy of the Environmental Assess- ment Statement,. Mr. Lounibos felt that they had adequately complied with the Commission's requests as everything had been furnished. He had offered to file an addendum to the traffic report and the explanation that all waters 'accumulated after paving of the area could be carried off by virtue of a drain easement proposed to traverse across the-high- way into the,Petaluma River. The staff indicated that one of the main issues raised by the City Engineer was the necessity of a traffic signal., which might be necessary by virtue of the commercial development, and if it was not put in by the developer now, it would have to be funded later by the City. It was suggested that the applicant be informed of the information.re- quired to determine the need for a traffic signal and that the. State have the opportunity to comment on it be-fore the site design is approved. This would put the applicant on, notice that there is a good chance that signals will be required in this area and he would have to provide them. Mr. Stokes inquired if the PUD could be conditioned and was told that the PUD development plan within the rezoning could be conditioned, but not the rezoning itself. -4- il Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, January 16, 1973 Comm. Daly made the motion that the EAS and EIR be accepted as submitted by the - , applicant together with all the testimony that had been taken tonight, and Comm.. Balshaw seconded the motion. The question was-then raised if -that meant accepting the report as ,being complete, and Comm. Daly clarified that he felt, as far as we know the testimony submitted was correct and problems had been covered.. He added that now was not the time to go into these problems in depth as this should be done at the time of site design review. Comm. Balshaw added the report was only required as information 'to make a decisi,on. - A great deal o,f discussion ensued regarding accept ance of the report as being complete, after which the. vote was taken. AYES 3 NOES 3 ABSENT 1 Motion was therefore defeated, and Chairman Popp stated that we would proceed with the rezoning on subject property. PETALUMA PROPERTIES. Chairman Popp opened the continuation of the Public - REZONING Z18 -72 Hearing on the request for rezoning from a R -1- 10,000 District and "'A" 'District to a Planned Comma- & nity District on property located on the northeast- erly side of Lakeville Highway between Casa Grande YOUNG & STOKES - Road.and Frates Road. REZONING Z21 -72: It was decided to take both rezoning applications at one time and Chairman Popp therefore also opened the continuation of the Public Hearing on the request for rezoning from a .R -1- 10',000 District and "A" District to a CH -PUD on area located generally bounded by Casa Grande Road, Lakeville Highway and the southeasterly extension of So. McDowell Blvd.. Mr. Richard Anderson synopsized the staff report which had previously been presented at the October 17, 1972 meeting of the Planning Commission and also ,read the Addendum report thereto. The staff comment was that the PCD'appeared to be in accord- ance with the designations and provisions of the Environmental Design Plan with regard to the resi- dential development. Also, the proposed commercial development is of the type which conforms to the neighborhood and hyighway commercial designations on the Environmental D.esign'Plan, but would involve a larger area than shown on the Environmental Design Plan. I , f`the Commission feels that the proposed type of development is appropriate for the area and the benefits which would accrue to the -5- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, January 16, 1973 . i City with the proposed plan would be greater than with the present EDP designations for the area, the proper procedure would be to approve the proposed rezoning and amend the EDP afterward. Mr. Stokes remarked that he did not understand the procedures and wanted to know if the property Could be rezoned without the acceptance of the EIR and also if the rezoning could be delayed,, because of the nonacceptance of the EIR.; Chairman Popp answered that a.iegal opinion should probably be obtained from the. City Attorney and also that the rezoning could.poss.ibly be delayed. However, the Commission was to proceed with the Public " Hearing this evening that had been con tinued a number of times, and the'presentation and all.information should be furnished "at this time. Mr. Gary Stokes gave an oral presentation utilizing a. development plan layout. A recess was called at 9:35 p.m. and the meeting resumed at 9:.4.5 p.m. Mr. Marty Hess, Land Planner from Dick Finnegan, Cupertino, presented slides and pictures to illus- trate.plans for the project. Mr. Rex,Kelsoe, C & W Manhattan Associates, Houston, one of the developers of the K- Mart, gave an, oral presentation on the K --Mart proposal including'that it would employ 140 -150 people and as many of these employee's as possible would be hired from the community". Also, he stated that this project would result in an increase in the City's tax revenue without increasing the school enrollment and also the project would be of: a, non - polluting type. Illustrations of recent' K -Marts were furnished for the Commissions review. At this. time Mr. Lounibos stated that he did not know if the condition to proceed,on the rezoning's was the acceptance of the :EAS and EIR, and suggested that the action on both rezonings and the acceptance the EfR be postponed until the next regular meeting and information be given as to what would be additionally required. Chairman Popp told him that when the Pulic Hearings were concluded whatever action was .necessary to comply with his request would" be taken. • Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, January 16, 1973 Comm. Daly reminded the Commission that the guide- lines state that if an EIR.is not sufficient the report can be augmented. Chairman Popp remarked the Commission could pos =tpone their decision until the next meeting awaiting a reply from,the State Division of Highways on the amended traffic report or make a decision tonight. Mr. Richard Anderson advised him that this would not give the State Division of Highways time to respond. Chairman Popp reminded the Commission that the applicant had expressed the desire to have the Commission withhold their decision until the next meeting to give him additional time to provide the proper information to make the EIR acceptable. Mr. Stokes informed the Commission that he was not sure what was acceptable as they felt that the EAS questions had been answered truthfully and the ElR had covered the environmental aspects. Ile expressed the need to know what was required at this time so they would have time to respond. Chairman Popp asked the Commissioners what they felt would be required additionally. It was decided the following information should be fur - nished: 1) An addendum to the traffic report, especially regarding the K -Mart project. 2) A market report should be given with regard to the K -Mart project, basically covering the reasons that justify putting in a proposed center of this size in this area. 3) The report on flood control and the acceptance of the plan by Sonoma County Water Agency should be put in writing. Comm. Waters made the motion that we accept the applicants' request to delay the decision on both rezonings and the EIR and continue the Public Hearings until the next regular meeting, and Comm. Hood seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 CASA GRANDE ANNEXATION The staff presented a report on the Environmental `• # PROPERTY - ENVIRON- Assessment Statement and the prezoning which MENTAL ASS'E'SSMENT recommended the Environmental Assessment Statement STATEMENT EVALUATION be accepted without requiring an EIR and that the PREZONING Z2 ='73.: proposed prezoning be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. -7- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, January 16, 1973 Chairman Popp opened the Public Hearing and asked if any in the audience wished to speak for or against this prezoning and acceptance of the EAS. Mrs. Anna Filippini, 193 Casa Grande Road, took the floor and asked why h.er property should have to come into the City at this time, when the property was undeveloped and the City has limited building. She felt the land could not support itself taxwise under those circumstances. Mr. Richard Anderson explained that it was desirable for the Jr -Sr High School to come into the City and LAFCO wants all annexations.to proceed in an orderly progressive manner without leaving small areas of unincorporated land. The Filippini property would constitute a pocket if not annexed. Comm. Daly interjected that the City Attorney had recently told him that there was a recent Supreme Court decision that says that non - resident annexa- tions or those with less than eleven that do not require a vote are probably unconstitutional, and probably not valid annexations any longer in this State. Mr. Richard Anderson stated that in order to get any reaction out of LAFCO, prezoning is necessary, and Comm. Daly remarked that under the recent court decision LAFCO would no longer have control over non - resident annexations as they would require State -wide approval on a general basis. Mr. Marino Crinella spoke from the audience stating that LAFCO was aware of the preceding ruling, but it is not final and LAFCO is proceeding on a regu- lar basis and going ahead. Mr. Crinella told the Commission that his property. was immediately adjacent to the high school property on the north side. He asked if the pre - zoning request was for R- 1- 6,000 -PUD and Mr. Richard Anderson told him that was correct, iDut with the adoption of the new zoning ordinance on January 17, 1973 it would be R -1- 6,500 -PUD. Mr. Robert O'Neel asked if a PUD zoning could be designated instead, as this would allow more flexibility. If a R -1 -6,000 -PUD designation would be given the developer would have to come back for PUD approval at a later date. Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, January 16, 1973 Mr. Crinella brought out the fact that the Planning Commission would still have control because they had the chance to review and approve or disapprove the development plan. Mr. Richard Anderson suggested a designation of R- 1 -PUD. Comm. Balshaw felt the school site should be surrounded by open land and this could only be possible if a street were on all four sides. This was discussed as a possible consideration at the time the development plans are submitted. Chairman Popp closed the Public Hearing. Comm.. Daly made the motion to recommend to LAFCO the PUD prezoning of this piece of property and also make known to LAFCO the comments of Mrs. Filippini and the actual support of her comments. Comm- Waters seconded the motion. Mr. Richard Anderson reminded the Commission that the recom- mendation was to be forwarded to the City Council who would in turn forward it to LAFCO, and the motion was so amended. Comm. Hood remarked that the EAS had not been acted upon and Comm. Daly amended his motion to include the acceptance of the EAS as having no environmental impact and Comm. Waters seconded the amendment. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 OTHER BUSINESS: Comm. Balshaw brought up the matter of setting a date for the proposed modifications to the General Plan. I-Ie emphasized that this should be completed in February 1973 and asked the Chairman to set a date. Chairman Popp directed the Planning staff to put this item on the agenda for the February 6, 1973 Planning Commission meeting. SONOMA COUNTY Mr. Richard Anderson advised the Commission about REFERRALS: the following two administrative appeals of zoning permits for mobile homes that Sonoma County had referred for evaluation. 1. Hazel I. Wortman, 1969 Old Adobe Road, in an "A" District_ in the unincorporated County area. 2. Alfonso & Evelyn Carrasco, 590 Cavanaugh Lane, in a "U" District in the unincorporated County area. VA 1 Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, January 16, 1973 i He further stated that inasmuch as it is the City Council's policy to oppose the use of mobile homes for residential purposes in the General Plan area, except for.agricultural employee housing, the staff recommended forwarding a letter to the Sonoma. County Board of Zoning Adjustments opposing the two proposed mobile homes. Comm. Waters made the motion that a letter opposing the 'two.proposed mobile homes be forwarded to the Sonoma County Board of Zoning Adjustments and Comm. Balshaw seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 Mr. Anderson advised about a third Sonoma referral to consider a use permit to allow Cader Farms to have a retail sales room for eggs and poultry items at 131.5 Ely Road in an "A" District in the unincorporated County area. The staff recommended no opposition be made because the present zoning classification as well as the exist- ing use is agricultural and it is not anticipated that develppment will occur in the subject area until most of the balance of the proposed urban area is developed. The requested use permit could help retain the agricultural use and open appear- ance of the area. He added a small building was to be built for this purpose. Comm. Waters made the motion that a letter be for - warded to the Sonoma County Board of Zoning Adjustments indicating no opposition to the re- quested use permit and Comm,. Balshaw seconded the motion. AYES 4 NOES 2 ABSENT 1 ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m. -10-