Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/06/1973-4 PPE TALUKA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1973 REGULA R MiftING CITY Cotffl diL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PLEDGE ALLEGrANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL�-.j Comm. Balshaw Bond Daly,­` Schmelz Waters .]Popp STAFF-. William C_ McGiVer'n, Di�reector Of tom Richard D. A. Ahdekson,'A'SSociate lPlanner ' APPROVAL dORRESP0 MINUTES ENVIRON 12NTAL AS SE'S S ME N."T', 'STAI EVALUATI 1. Lieb & Qu" Furopean Carr Service for proposed shop a storage area addition at 700 Petaluma Blvd- So� 2 Lieb .& Quaresma represeh-ting Lombardi Is - 'French Bakery for pr6posed-addition at 389 Petaluma blvd. No. 3a , Lyle. Hood representing G61den Land Realty for proposed td.-.office at,,501 East Washington street. 4 Atlanti'c_zi. Pacific Bldg,. Corporation 'proposal for _Baywood'shoppi Center- to be.. located at Baywood. Drive Arad. P6rry. Lane. SITE DESIGN AND 724RIANCE R#VIEW COMMITTEE REPLORTS: 1. Site desigh,fbr. European. Car,,Service.represented by Lieb. & Quare.sma . f ® ° , proposed shop and st6rage area addition. at 700 Petaluma Blvd,... So. in a C-H (High, - way Comin6rctal)-DistrIct. '2,. Site dei§icjn for..Lombardi"s French Bakery represen- ted by Libb. & - Quar`d'sri a far proposed addition to bakery at 38,9, Petaluma"B lvdi No® in a C -(Highufay _-Commercial) :Diis trict.. and- - a "variance` request to reduce rear ' setback. 3. Site. design: for -Golden Land Realty represented by Lyle Hood for,' pxi.opose4 .office addition -at 501 East Waghington-Street in a CAN (Neighbor-,hood' Commercial) - District and-a variance request to :reduce rear yard setback. A. Site design.1ftir �krchitecture, 'Inc. for .proposed 92 -u multi - faniily..*apartritc. to 7 ba located at. 15'0..Main'lia Ave. in a R-M-1, 5,0,;3 0, - , I I . (ftltiple,Residential) D isc r ±'r, t. Petaluma City Planning Commission Agenda Februa 6," 1573 9 y REQUEST FOR TIME Atlantic,.& Pacific B'ld'g.., Corporation". request for time EXTENSION: extension for.prpposed Bayw6od,.,Shopping Center to' be. located at BAYwo6d Drive and Perry Lane in a. -H (Highway..Commercial) District,. PETALUMA PROPS - REVIEW OF .: . I � ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RE PETALUMA AOPER!TIES - PZZONING Z18-72: YOUNG'.& STOKES - Z'2'1-72: GENERAL' MODIFICA S Continuation of Publi& Hearing ..to ,cons i . det-further continuation of the _EnViLrohmental Impact. Report sub- mitted in support _of P.C.D. development located on the :n6rthea's ter ly side of LakevIll High- way between Casa Grande.-Road And Frates Road., Continuatio n o , f�'�Pdbi lic Hearipg_'to. consider f urther , continuation of - r'&ques , t-,. for., re zon ing from- a, -R -1= 14,-0'00 (One�ramily Residential)) District and "'A', (Agridultur; al) District..t6 'a P.LC..D,'._ .(.Planned 'Cbmmun'ity) District on property. lobaidd-on, • the_ northeaster side of Lakeville Highway between Casa Grande Road and Frate-s- Road. Continuati 11 on o 11. ..Public Hearing_to - consider further• continuation of 'iequest.for.-rOoning, f rom rom a, . R-1-10,.L000 (One-Fam-i Res identi _Di strict and.."A!' (Agricultural) District to,';a 'Clil=PtJD.-,(Hig-hway. Planned Unit Development) Dist, located in the area generally bounded "by Casa. Grande Road..;,'Lakeville:.Hiqhway and the S outheasterly dxtens.ion.. of. South McDowell Blvd- Public.H6aring-.to"cont to the PettLluta".Aro�a.,,.Geii6' Plan" f4i to the Environments -1 `Deslcrn Plan and the Master Plari of Zoning. OTHER BUSINESS:: Introduction,t6 ­,th6 P1ahh1':hg_ f6r the pose of setting - 'a Pu Hearing, to consider the re'zoning submitted by Lyle Hood from R-1-6,000 (One-FaMily.. Residential),. District to a 'P.U.,D... ( Unit Development)..District located on the north side of Grant Ave,. between ,;Mountain,View.and-." 'Street extension. -.2- 'PETALUMA C11 REGULAR MEE! CITY COUNCII PRESENT: M I N U T E S 7Y PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1973 ?ING 7:30 P.MI, CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA )mm. Ba Bond,,,*Hood, Daly, Popp, Schmelz, *Waters Hood ood arrived �at 7:35 p.m,,; Comm. Waters at 7:45 p,m. STAFF: William C McGivern,,, Director of Community Development Richard D. A. Anderson,, Associate Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of January 16, 1973 , were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE: Mr.-McGivern stated there was no correspondence to be presented this evening.. However, he wished to bring to the attention of the Commission a recent newspaper article concerning the State's regula- tions on Assessment Statements and Environmental Impact Reports. According to the guidelines drafted, a public hearing is required for these two items. However, they would not have to be published in the paper but would be placed on the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting and discussed at that time. SITE DESIGN' :AND VARIANCE REYIIEW COMMITTEE REPORTS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STATEMENT EVALUATIONS' : Mr. Anderson read recommendations of the Site Design and'Variance Review Committee with related Environmental Assessment Statement evaluation recommendations on the following projects: I 1. Site design for European Car Service represen- ted by Lieb & Qu'aresma for proposed shop and storage area addition, at 700 Petaluma Blvd, So. in a C-H, (Highway Commercial) District. 2. Site design for Lombardi's French Bakery represented by.Lieb,& Quaresma for proposed addition to bakery at 389 Petaluma Blvd. No. in a C-H (Highway Commercial) District and a variance request to reduce rear yard setback. 3. Site design for Golden Land Realty represented by Lyle Hood for proposed office addition at 501,East Washington Street in a C-N (Neighbor- hood Commercial) District and a variance request to reduce rear yard setback. 4. Site design.for Architecture, Inc. for proposed 92-unit multi-family apartment complex to be located at 150 Magnolia Ave. in a R-M-1,500 (Multi-Family Residential) District. I ' 'i ng C" ram is S Plan-n 0 ion . Minutes, February 6, 1973 The recommendations of the,Committee were that all of the above site designs and variances be granted with conditions as cited,, and related Environmen- tal Assessment Statements.be..accepted as being factual and not requiring Environmental Impact Reports. (The,Env*ronmental Assessment Statement forArchitecture, Inc. had been submitted and accepted at the .January.-3,..1973 meeting of the Planning Commission.) It was noted that the European Car Service project would require a use permit and Architecture, Inc. would be required to submit a parcel map to combine the three parcels into one. Mr. Anderson explained that a site design had previously been submitted for the multi-family apartment complex by Simonds and been approved for this development; however, with the change of developers a new site design had been submitted. The original ddvelopment called for 93 units and the present development calls for 92 units, He added that the new plan changes the driveway layout and that the Committee felt that there was suffi- cient open space Comm. Bond made the motion that the foregoing. site. .designs and variances be_ approved with conditions as cited by the-Committee, and that the Environmen- tal. Assessment ' Statement be accepted as having no significant environmental 'Impact, Comm. Schmelz seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 ABSTAINED 1 Comm.. Balshaw requested ments considered by the should .be furnished each Waters wished. to amplify a sketch of the area. that on future develop- Planning Commission a map commissioner. COMM. this request to include ENV1RONME MENT STAT EVALUAT & PACIFIC CORPORATI At AS,.USZ- - ATLANTIC BUILDING The staff report was read tat Assessment Statement statement be accepted as environmental impact, covering the Environmen- recommending that the having no significant Comm,. Hood voiced his objection as he felt there would have.to be some impact on the residents, and Comm. Waters felt that the Environmental Assessment Statement should deal with economic effects,.not only with the environmental aspects. lwm U Planning Commission Minutes,, February 6, 1973 Comm.. Daly'asked if-Question #3 pertaining to traffic. would then have to,be -con as complete if the EAS was.accepted, and Mr. McGivern replied that the City Engineer had furnished his comments that there would be no adverse effects. Chairman Popp reminded the Commissioners that all questionable aspects had been brought out at the time of site design review and all information had been supplied at that time by the developer. He then asked if the applicant would like to clarify the items questioned by the Commission, Mr. Jim Luis, Vice President of A & P Building Corporation, introduced himself and remarked that there would be some changes created by the proposed shopping center. He further remarked that this plan had been proposed for the past 4 or 5 years and ' everything around.it had been designed to meet the criteria of the shopping center's commercial use, including a 4- .lane road, since its inception. He further stated that the traffic impact question was the reason they were asking for a time exten- sion at this time until the alignment of Baywood Drive with Lakeville Highway had been completed. Mr. McGivern amplified Mr. Luis' statements by commenting that the street was designed to carry a great volume of traffic and this aspect of the development had been gone over carefully by both the Planning Commission and the developer to put in the 4-lane street to accommodate the commercial usage.. He' added that the City Engineer is saying that the developer has committed himself to do certain things and is doing them. There is no question there will be a change in the volume of traffic on the street, but the facility was designed to meet this anticipated volume of traffic. Comm. Hood felt that Question #3 of the statement asking if there would be a significant change in certain aspects, such as traffic conditions, should be answered in the affirmative, and that the EAS , should go back to the developer for reconsidera- tion of his answer. Comm. Daly also questioned the answer to Question #14, and asked if this development would require a variance. Mr. Luis answered his question by stating that no further variance would be required lam Pl.anni,ng .Commission Minutes February 6, 1973 as the variance.had..already been approved regard - ing the parking spaces. ..He further stated he felt. Question #3 had been answered correctly as the road was designed to.handle the traffic.. Comma. Daly disagreed as he felt there would be a change in the traffic pattern which would have an effect on the community. Mr. Luis answered that it would not be creating.any new residents travel - ing through the-project as it was basically a neighborhood shopping center. Mr. Anderson clarified that the old.zonng ordi- nance called for more parking spaces than were to be provided; however, on the basis of the new ordinance a variance would not be required Mr. McGivern asked if the Commission could take action at this time en the request for a time extension and that the staff would submit a corrected EAS if it was the wish of the Commission. Comm. Hood remarked the developer should submit the corrected EAS, not the staff, and Mr, McGivern advised that according to the guidelines estab- lished, any amplification is to be prepared by the staff in conjunction with the applicant. The Commission agreed.on obtaining amplification of the EAS. REQUEST FOR TIME Mr. Anderson read the staff report regarding the EXTENSION - ATLANTIC request for a 12 -month time extension on the C -H & PACIFIC BUILDING (Highway Commercial) rezoning for the proposed CORPORATT N: shopping center at Baywood Drive and Perry Lane. The staff recommendation was.for approval of the request inasmuch as-the proposed extension of Baywood.Drive to.Lakeville Highway had delayed the start of the project. In answer to a query by Comm. Balshaw, Mrs Anderson explained that shopping centers are'now conditional uses requiring use permits. Comm. b Balshaw then inquired if the Planning Commission had approved the use permit for the shopping center.and was told that they had not, as shopping centers were-not conditional uses in the old ordi- nance.which was in effect at the time of the site design approval of this development, C Mr. McGivern commented that.he did not think the developer should be required to obtain a use permit since this procedure was not in effect -4- Planning Commission minutes, February 6, 1973 wh'en the-zoning was approved. Ile added that the developer had been caught in the web.of circum- stances.because of-the change in the old zoning ordinance. -Under the present ordinance there is no provision:or..r.eversionary clause that.requires an ap plicant to-come back for a time extension A. on this type of rezoning. In order to.transcend from the old ordinance to the new.one,, the staff felt- it.was best to- carry out the requirements of the old ordinan ' ce-because it was approved under the old ordinance. It would get too involved legally otherwise and would.be an imposition to the developer as the site design was already approved. A great deal of discussion pursued on the sub- ject matter with Comm. Waters making the motion that the 12;--month extension of time on-the C-H (Highway Commercial) rezoning for the shopping center at Baywood Drive and Perry.Lane-be granted and Comm. Bond seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOKS I ABSENT 0 • Chairman Popp informed the applicant-that his request,for an extension of time was granted but that the Enviro nmental Assessment Statement would still have to be amplified. Comm. BalshAw asked if the City of Petaluma would have to submit an Environmental Impact Report on the Baywood Drive extension as it was his.under- standing that non-housekeeping projects required an EIR. He did not feel.that the Division of Highways had concerned themselves with-the traffic impact and possibly an EIR should be accomplished. Mr. McGivern replied that the City had been working on this relocation,of the.intersection for 5-1/2 years and had finally.gotten the access rights lifted so the intersection could be put in. He .further went. on to say ,that the-Division of Highways was quite interested in the traffic E impact at this intersection and it had been looked into quite thoroughly- by them., PETALUMA OPERTIES ar Further continuation of the Public Heing to �_' R .REVIEW OF' ENVIRONMENTAL consider the EIR submitted by Petaluma Properties IMPACT RE'PORT: in support of the proposed PCD development located on the northeasterly side of Lakeville Highway J between Casa Grande Road and Frates Road to -5- Planning Minutes,.February 6,,1973 � February 21,1973 is-requested to enable the Commission time to.receive the comments,of the State.Division of Highways regarding the traffic survey for this development. Comm. Hood made the motion that the Public Hearing to consider Young & Stokes rezoning Z21-72 be continued until February 21, 1973 and Comm. Bond seconded the motion. AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 GENERAL PLAN Mr. McGivern read the most important factors from MODIFICATIONS: the supplemental staff.report dated January 26, 15"73 regarding the modifications to the Petaluma Area General Plan. He clarified that it was not the intent of the staff 'to literally change.the General Plan at this time and incorporate the EDP Comm., Hood made the motion .that. the - .Public Hearing .,-.to .consider .the EIR be continued untll,.February 21, 1973 and.Comm ®. Waters seconded the motion. AYES I NOES 0 ABSENT 0 PETALUMk PROPERTIES Further continuation of the Public Hearing to REZONING Z18-72: consider the request for rezoning from a R -1- 10,000 District and "A ". District to a PCD District on property located on the northeasterly side of Lakeville Highway.between Casa Grande Road and Frates Road to February'21, 1973 is requested to enable the Commission time to receive the.comments of the State Division Of Highways regarding the traffic survey for this development. Comm. Waters made the motion that.the -Public Hearing to consider 'Petaluma Properties.rezoning Z18-72 be continued until February 21, 1973 and Comm. Daly seconded the motion. AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 YOUNG & TOKES Further continuation of the Public Hearing to,con- REZONING sider the request for rezoning from a R-1-10,000 District and "A" District to a,CH-7PUD-District, located in the..area.generally bounded by Casa Grande Road, Lakeville Highway and the southeast- erly extension of South McDowell Blvd. to February 21, 1973 is requested to-enable the Commission time to receive the comments of the State Division of Highways regarding the traffic survey for this development. Comm. Hood made the motion that the Public Hearing to consider Young & Stokes rezoning Z21-72 be continued until February 21, 1973 and Comm. Bond seconded the motion. AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 GENERAL PLAN Mr. McGivern read the most important factors from MODIFICATIONS: the supplemental staff.report dated January 26, 15"73 regarding the modifications to the Petaluma Area General Plan. He clarified that it was not the intent of the staff 'to literally change.the General Plan at this time and incorporate the EDP Planning' commission Minutes., February, 6, 1973 in its entirety as .the EDP. is a, more .Specific Plan than the General Plan. The EDP. is.,to. serve as.a guideline to bring the.General Plan and the Master Plan.of zoning in concert with each other. Some of the items suggested for change are.only.instruments by which further in-depth studies-of certain areas-would..be required. It was further explained.that blanket conformity with the EDP could cause some,con- flicts, for example, if the P-M zoning were removed in the area next to Hillcrest Hospital, it would put them.into nonconformity if they decided to expand. That problem would have to be taken up later with the refinements of the rezoning process. Mr. McGivern concluded that if the.proposed changes to the General Plan were considered and approved this evening, time.wise we..would be in a good position to meet . State due dates of July 1, 1973. These changes would also have to go to the City Council, the Sonoma County Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. He felt that the changes proposed would satisfy the requirements of AB 1301, and although they might not satisfy entirely what the City Council and the Planning Commission-wants done, would be the first step towards the ultimate goal. Comm.. Balshaw questioned why the General Plan was being modified now and the EDP later and Mr.. McGivern explained that with the time schedule prevailing it would not be possible to deal with all the problems at the same time and.the State law requirements therefore would not be.met unless a much larger staff could be made available. Also, there are inconsistencies on the General Plan that will have to be brought into concert with General Plan programs of the County. Comm. Balshaw felt that the Study areas were still required and Mr. McGivern explained that the staff recommendations were intended to do things in an orderly manner and not to violate state require- ments. He added that in the near future -a set of priorities on some of the Study areas.would be presented to the Commission., .who in turn would - possibly a 'bl have to break down into committees to study them. -7- Pla Commission Minutes, February 6,. 1973 Comm—Hood and Comm. waters questioned the commercial designation in Item #2 of the pro- posed modifications and was told it was.,ind ted to keep in.context with what staff reports already reflected; however, it could be held off until actual action on the property was taken. Al,discussion ensued on the Transitaional. desig- nation for Item #7 and it was determined that due-to past--controversy over this property it would be best. to not make.a commitment but to designate it Transitional until a study could be made. Comm. Hood asked for a definition of-Transitional versus Study Area and.it was explained that a "Study Area" is identified as a classification in a zoning district and is a specific district while "Transitional" is only a land use designa- tion for the General Plan. Comm. Balshaw suggested the following modifica- tions to the General Plan: 1. Delete the second half of Item #2 designating area west of McDowell and south of Casa Grande as Commercial. 2. East Washington where it intersects with Ely Road on out to Old Adobe Road should be indicated as 4 lanes. 3., The EDP map that.was used for the Public Hearing shows the greenbelt.going through the airport, the General Plan should be reflected in.,the same manner. 4,. Ely Road South should be 4 lanes to Lakeville Highway. 5,, Casa Grande Road to Old Adobe Road should be 4 lanes. 6. The school, designation (K-6) east of the air- port should be moved to Caulfield. Mr� McGivern remarked he took no exception to any of the suggestions but he felt further,staff review was necessary. He further clarified that the greenbelt was not a precise line and would -8- Planning Commission Minutes, February 6, 1973 have to be determined by a Public Hearing if it were to be so, .Chairman Popp opened .the.Publ.ic Hearing and asked-if.anyone from.the audience wished to make a-statement. Dick Lieb, Lieb &-.Quaresma, remarked. that' if a zoning other than P-M. were to be considered for the.HillcresL Hospital area, the two convales- cent homes might be up in arms. Mr. McGivern agreed, but added this was not the time to solve zoning problems. Chairman Popp closed the Public Hearing. Comm. Waters made the motion that the proposed changes to the General Plan, to include all the changes suggested by Comm. Balshaw, be accepted, and Comm. Schmelz seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 1 ABSENT 0 OTHER The Commission was advised they would receive a map incorporating all of the suggested changes.. SINESS: Mr. McGivern introduced an application submitted by Lyle Hood requesting rezoning from R-1-6,000 (One-Family Residential) District to.a PUD (Planned Unit Development) District located on the north side of Grant Ave. between Mountain View and "I" Street extension. He informed the Commission 'that this PUD development had been submitted to the Residential Development Evalua- tion Board and had been successful in-receiving an allotment of.8.residential units. Maps of the development would be furnished the Commis- sioners, If agreeable with the Commission, a Public Hearing would.be set for February 21, 1973. No objection was raised and it was deter- mined to schedule the Public Hearing. Comm. Balshaw asked if modifications to the EDP could be discussed at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission,, After discussion it was decided that the former EDP Committee members, Comm. Hood and Comm. Balshaw, would meet on February 13, 1.973 at 7:30 p.m, with a member of - the staff to discuss changes and -9- .0 _gyp_