Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/21/1973A G E N D - A PETALUMA CITY PLANNING CONIMIS REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY'HALL PLEDGE TO THE FEBRUARY 21 1.973 7:30 P;,M PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA POLL CALL� Comm. Balshaw Bond Daly Hood Schmelz Waters Popp STAFF: I William C. MoGivern, Director of Community Development Richard D. A. Anderson, Associate Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES CORRESPOND'��NCE ENVIRONMENjTAL 1. Continuance of evaluation of EAS submitted by ASSESSMENT} Atlantic & Pacific Bldg. Corporation for proposed STATEMENT I. Baywood Shopping Center to be located at Baywood EVALUATIONS: Drive and Perry Lane. , 2. Walter Kieckhefer's proposed Golden Eagle Shop- ping Center to be located in the area bounded by East Washington St., Weller St., and the Petaluma River. 3. Lyle Hood's proposed PUD located on the north side of Grant Ave. between Mountain View and "I" S:t. extension. SITE DESIGN REVIEW Golden Eagle Shopping Center proposed site design sub- COMMITTEE REPORT: mitted by Walter Kieckliefer for site l ocated in area bounded by East Wasbington St., Weller St., and the Petaluma River in a C-C (Community Commercial) District. LYLE HOOD L Public Hearing to consider the rezoning request sub- REZONING Z,5-73: mitted by Lyle Hood from R-1-6,000 (One-Family Residential) District to a P.U,,,D, (Planned Unit Devel- Opment) on property located on the north side of, Grant Ave, between Mountain View and "I" St. Ext ensi,on. TENTATIVE,MAP - Condiotti Enterprises, Inc. proposed PUD development KESTRIDGE'bNITS of Westridge Units I & 2 to be located south of #1 & # Sunnyslope' Road and west of ".I" St. Extension. Planning Commission Agenda, February 21, 19, 73 REVIEW OF Public Hearing to consider the EIR submitted by ENVIRONMEN AL IMPACT Condiotti Enterprises, Inc. in support of their REPORT - WESTRIDGE, proposed PUD development to le located south of UNITS #1 & 02 S-unnyslope Road' and West of "I" Street Extension. CONDIOTTI-�ENTER- Introduction to.Planning..Commission of PUD appli- PRISES, IN',C. - cation submitted by Condiotti Enterprises, Inc. REZONING Z-,6-'73- for proposed - PUD development to be located south of Sunnyslope Road .and West of "I" Street Exten- sion to set Public Hearing date, AMBNDMENTS�j TO Public Hearing to consider proposed modifications ZONING ORDINANCE to Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N".'C,,S,. regarding the NO. 1072 N.C,.S.: definition of Planned Residential Development, side yard requirements, planned community and planned unit development, location of accessory buildings,, home occupations . and hearing procedures. WILLIAM McCOY, ET In n Introduction to Planing Commission of application AL - REZON�NG Z3-73: suhm-iteed by Lieb & Quaresma representing William McCoy, et al, to consider rezoning from R-1-6,500 (One-Family Residential) District to R-C-PUD (Compact Reside ' ntial Planned Unit Development) ,District, located at 14 Hinman St. and 15 & 19 Fair St. LIEB & QUARESMA, Introduction to Platting Commission of.application ET AL submitted by Lek & Quaresma, et al, to consider REZONING ZA-73: rezoning from M-L (Light Industrial) District to C-H (Highway Commercial) District,, located in the block bounded by East "D" Street, Erwin Street, Jefferson Street & Lakeville Street. PETALU1 PROPERTIES Continuation of Public Hearing to consider further I - REVIEW OF continuation of the EIR submitted in support of ENVIRONMENTAL the proposed P.C.D. development located on the IMPACT REPORT: northeasterly s1de of Lakeville Highway between !I Casa Grande Road and crates Road. PETALUMA PkOPEFVI Continuation of Public Hearing to consider further REZONING Z18-72: continuation of recTuest for rezoning from a R -1- 10,000 (One-Family Residential) District and "A" (Agricultural) District to . a P.C.D, (Planned Community) District on property located on the northeasterly side of' Lakeville Highway between Casa Grande Road and crates Road,,' -2- ­Plannincr V ssionl\.genda, February 21, 1973 YOUNG & STOKE S - REZONING i-21- ADJOURNMENT Continuation of Piiblic Hearing to consider further continuation of request for rezoning from a R-1-10,060 (One-Family Residential) District and "A" (Agricultural) District to a CH-PUD (High%.-,iay Commercial-Planned Unit Development) District, located in the area generally bounded by Casa Grande Road, Lakeville Highway and the southeasterly extension of South McDowell Blvd. -3- I M T N U T E S P 'A UMA ITY PLAN E T L C' N ING COMMISSI-ION FEBRUARY 2'1:,, 1973 RtGUtAR 111EETING 7-;30 P.M. CIT CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm. BaIsbaw. 'Bond, Daly, Popp,, Echmelz, Waters, Hood STA FF: 'Wil C. McGivern, Director of Community Development Richard Di A. Anderson, Asseoc1a!te Planner APPROVAL'OF MINUTES:, The minutes o,f'February 6, 1973 were approved as submitted. ATLANTIC &,PACIFIC 9UILPI,NG CORPORATION ENVI RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STATE- MENTJ 'EVALUATION: In acdotda I nce with the request of the Planning Commis ,iQn on February 6, 197,3, the applicant slibmitted a revised Environmental Assessment Statement. This - revision showed a positive answer for Questions #.,l and #3. 'The Staf recommended the EAS' be accepted. as revised. and no EI-R be required. Comm. Waters felt the ques=tions• had not been specifically explained and the applicant Va-s. called upon for qualification. Mr. J im, Luis, Vice Presiderit of A & P ' Building Corporation, - informed the 'Commission he felt. he had ,�q.ualifled his answers, because as he had stated p-roviously, the site was ghed t de sign ed o com6date the facility and any '' a 'ic zdd,itiona traffic: load. Comm. Daly made the motion that the Environ- mental Assessment,Statem be accepted as f:a,ptual._ and;,,,hdvinq no significant . environ- ernefttal impact And.-Qomme.. Bond seconded the motion . 'AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 IS GOLDEN. EAGLE S�HOPP-ING', CENTER SITE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL- ASSESS- MENT'STATEMENT REVIEW: It was reported by Mr- Anderson that the Site Design-Review Committee had discussed the con,di.tions— cited in the st-a-f. report and the applicant had . no objections to. them with the ex,6e p '1 ,on, Q,f. condition .#7 requesting the northerly access drive leading to the ,bank dxive? windows 'be widened to 20 feet, as he felt this would constitute a hard.- ship to the, bank.. Inasmuch as this drive was det ermined-for.,,use Only as an exit, the., applicant wot1d. sufficient and had requested it,be marked "Exit ;Only.'.' Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, February 21, 1973 A great deal of discussion followed regarding alternative plans for the driveways, includ- ing the possibility of a 20 foot width for exit and a 30 foot for entrance. It was determined the developer_ and the Planning Director would work together to solve the free movement problem. Mr. ,Anderson remarked -that condition #8 of the staff report recommendations should be amended to include "to be in accordance with the requirements of the City Engineer" regarding the public street improvements along Weller Street. Discussion followed as to the extent of the improvements, and the applicant informed the .Commission he would work this matter.out with the City Engineer. The conditions of. the Site Design Review Committee were read by Mr. Anderson., and Mr. McGivern requested that'condition #1 be amended to read "A reversion to acreage map or a parcel map shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Director before issuance of the building permit." He explained this was to comply with State law to insure that all divisions of land on the subject parcel were erased. Mr. Kieckhefer stated he had already made arrange - ments with the County, and it is shown on the assessor maps as one. parcel number at the present time. Chairman Popp asked if the applicant understood ali the conditions and the applicant answered in the affirmative. The staff report regarding_ the EAS was read giving the recommendation of the staff that it be accepted. Comm.. Balshaw questioned the type of walkway planned for the development, and Mr. Kieckhefer in formed the.Commission they not planning any pedestrian lane so to speak;. There are walkways planned'bi1A.nd the buildings that are more appropriately cal -led part of the building than a public walkway on the river bank. He added that if cutting of the river bank were done for a flat walkway, the type of erosion that had taken place in the past would occur. -2- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1973 Mr. Kieckhefe'r did not feel, this portion of the river (,,Golden tagle Property) in the downtown core, was feasible for Pedestrian walkways Another parcel of lane due south of the City on Petaluma Blvd. in his ownership, is being ' planned fot development. He felt ttia ' parcel is better suited for public walk- ways: adjacent to the river. Comm., - Balshaw rem. n the Commission that the EDP .(Environmental De-qiqn Plan),, as a policy, states that all- hatural.channels will be made available for pedestrian access and expressed the fear that eventua -- the river would be lined with walls.. He.felt there should be a walkway even. if it meant moving the buildings. Although the plan showed a, walkway around the 'buildings which was open to the public, it was not 'the type of w.a . lkway desired aesthetically. Comm'.. Balshaw inqu I i I red about trash areas s and w: as told by the applicant that they were -to be located on th&parking lot in rbdwo od.fence,d areas. Di&c.us;sion followed after which Mr., MdGIVbrn suggested ;condition #5 of the staff report be! ame to include tE_cit trash collection a points would be pproved'by the Planning Director before issuance of a build- ing permit A great deal of discussion followed with regard 'to. lands:cap along Washington 'Street and conformance to requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. McGiVe'rn' suggested consulting a quali.fied landscape architect if necessary to check, the. plans , for al professional opinion, •and also suggested that the revised landscape plan be brought 'b to the, Site Design Review Committee for approval.. Comm. Daly asked about the -width of the ' walkway and extensive d1scussIon ensued regarding its width and development;. The need: was, again ,expressed to 'have the walkway wider to be of :aesthetic Value to the river. . Mr. Kieckhefe informed the Commission that moving the bui ld- ings forward would kill the whole projt ' ec . Comm.. Bond spoke; .as. s, ,Chairman of the Site -Review Committee stating the, 'plans were acceptabl,e to.him-with the exception of comply- ing with the Lands Requirements of the ;Zonihg e Ofdinan�c for.,,the, Washington Street , frontage. -3- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, February 21, 1973 1 Comm. Waters made the motion that the site design be' approved with conditions as, cited in staff report, amendments thereto, and the .following additional conditions: 1. A plan showing adequate landscaping and conformance with the Zoning Ordinance along Washington Street shall be submitted. 2'. Location of trash receptacles will be shown on the map. 3. Walkways behind buildings, around the river edge shall be'widened to 8 feet. 4. Light standards will be shown on the plan. Comm. Balshaw seconded the motion. AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 Comm. Daly made the motion that the EAS be accepted as having no significant environ- mental impact and 'Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 'LYLE HOOD - The staff report was read by Mr. Anderson REZONING Z5 -73 re °commending approva -1 of the rezoning. He also read the staff report on the EAS which & recommended it be accepted filed. ENVIRONMENTAL Chairman Popp opened the Public Hearing. More ASSESSMENT information was requested from the audience STATEMENT, and Lyle Hood took the floor to display a EVALUATION: layout concept and explain plans for the development. Mr. Lewis Hill, a nearby resident, inquired about sidewalks and the safety factor involved for children. Mr. Ken Colin, 25 Halsey Avenue, spoke stating he also felt a need for sidewalks. Otherwise, he had no objection to the development providing the rezoning and plan remain synonymous and no other buildings would be built in addition to those now presented. He also stated he did not want to be surrounded by medium density homes and asked the possibility of other developments in this area. -4- Petaluma City`Planning Commission Minutes, February 21, 1973 Mr. McGivern answered that the P.U.D. zoning and plan were one and the same. Also, in the event the property is not developed within a. reasonable time, the Planning Commission then has the opportunity to go back and look at it. If they then found it advisable, the property would revert back to its original zoning of R- 1- 6,000. Mr. McGivern added that each and every parcel request for development is revaluated on its. own merits and a similar Public Hearing would be held if anyone wished to develop a P.U.D in this area, as it is now zoned R- 1- 6,000. Likewise, a Public Hearing would also have to be held if subdivision occured, and he therefore felt there was adequate requirements and regulations to protect the people in the neighborhood. Mr. Dale Amsber -ry, 54'Grant Avenue, asked about added traffic on,'Grant Avenue and about children walking, on Grant Avenue to school without benefit of sidewalks or gutters. He registered concern, about the zoning ordinance being altered when convenient and about the possibility of two other plots on Grant.Avenue, °wi'th almost: the :ident =ical conditions as the proposed development plot, being zoned for multi=ple dwelling in the future. Mr. McGivern replied that the zoning district was not being altered, and further explained that a P.U..D. development is clustering of units instead of developing them as single- family units. He added that the proposed plans allow 9,750 sq. ft. per unit, which ids quite a generous size. Mr. McGivern then further explained a P.U.D. type of development to the audience. Dick Hoorn, 6 Halsey Avenue,.stated that to his way of thinking, 18 bedrooms implied 1.8 vehicles; and although he liked the plan he indicated . thought should be given to dispersion of traffic. to other streets when poss -ible. He also expressed concern about Halsey Street being cut through because of further developments. The Public Hearing was closed. Comm.. Waters asked the applicant about the feasibility of sidewalks on the project site. Lyle, Hood, the developer, responded that he did not expect too many children in this development and preferred landscaping instead, but if the Commission wished he could put in narrow sidewalks. -5- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, February 21, 1973 With regard to previous questions regarding sidewalks for ehihdren walking to school, Mr. Hood stated there were sidewalks in front of the property. It was determined that the placement of sidewalks would be worked out with the Planning staff. t Comm. Balshaw.questioned the grade and was told-that.at the steepest point the grade is 30 feet for a short distance. Chairman Popp asked about property adjoining and was told that Mr. Nelson owned one side and did not care to develop or sell; now and the piece next to Kelly•Lane was not for sale and could not be developed unless Kelly Lane was improved, as it was not yet a public street. The parcel in front of the proposed development also is owned by Mr. Hood. Chairman Popp asked if this development would landlock the other properties and Mr.Hood :i stated he did not'feel it would. Recess was called at 9;35 p.m. and the'meeting readjourned at 9;45 p.m. Mr. Lewis Hull, a neighbor, questioned why a portion of Mr; Ho:od`s property on ,:.Ye frontage of the parcel was not utilized for the driveway and Mr-Hood replied that the lot is only 54-1/2 feet wide. If it is made ,any narrower it would be more nonconforming than it already ekists. He also did not feel he could economically include this parcel but would do landscaping on it. After reviewing all the facts and hearing all applicable testimony, Comma Schmelz made a motion that the rezoning request to P.U.D. be granted and Comm Balshaw seconded the motion. AYES 6 "'NOES 0 ABSENT 0. ABSTAINED 1 • Comm. Daly made the motion that the EAS be accepted as filed and Comm, waters seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 ABSTAINED 1 Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, February 21, 1973 WESTRIDGE UNITS Mr. McGivern referred to the next three #1 &C#2 - TENTATIVE -- items on the agenda and.requested that these MAP i items be continued until February 27, 1973 because of a delay in getting a report from & the City Engineer. He reminded the Commission that they already had a joint meeting with REVIEW OF ENVIRON- the City Council, scheduled for that evening MENTAL IMPACT REPORT and suggested these items be held after as FOR WESTRIDGE P.U.D.. an adjourned meeting. Mr. McGivern further DEVELOPMENT clarified that the City Engineer could not respond earlier as he did not have the full information to make his report because an addendum to the EIR had been required and had only recently been provided. CONDIOTTI ENTER- PRISES, INC. Chairman Popp and the applicant, Mr. Condiotti, REZONING Z6 -73: stated they had no objections to this suggested continuance; however, three of the Commissioners stated they would be' unable to attend that i evening. It was determined to consider all three items on March 6, 1973 so that a quorum ! could be present. Comm. Daly asked when the Public Hearing had been set by the Commission and Mr. McGivern explained that inasmuch as the Subdivision Tentative Map was to be considered this evening (in compliance with the 50 day time limit for Planning Commission action stated in the Subdivision Ordinance) , it was felt that the EIR should accompany this map. He added there is no State or local requirement for a Public Hearing with notice or advertising ion a Subdivision Tentative Map and it was a value judgement that the Planning Commission would prefer to take care of the whole development package at one time rather than piecemeal. Chairman Popp opened the.Public Hearing for review of the EIR for the Westridge P.U.D. Comm. Waters motion that the EIR consideration for the Westridge P.U.D. development be continued until March 6, 1973 and Comm. Balshaw seconded the motion. AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 Comm. Waters made the motion that a Public Hearing be set for the Condiotti Enterprises, Inc. P.U.D. rezoning for March 6, 1973 and Comm. Balshaw seconded the motion.. AYES 7 NOES 0' ABSENT 0 -7- Petaluma City Planning, Commission Minutes, February 21, 1973 PETALUMA PROPERTIES The staff explained to the Commission - REVIEW OF that the necessary report from the State ENVIRONMEN'T'AL Division of Highways had been very recently IMPACT REPORT received and would be made available for 1 the next meeting of the Planning Commission, & . therefore, a further continuance was necessary. PETAL,UMA PROPERTIES, Comm.. Daly made the motion that the three REZONING Z18 -72 items pertaining to Petaluma Properties be brought back on,March 6, 1973 and Comm. Bond +& seconded the motion. AYES 7 NOES 0 �. ABSENT 0 YOUNG & STOKES - study, Mr. McGivern asked that a Public REZONING Z21 -72: Mr. Ed Hansen, representing the applicant, asked the Chairman if these three items could not.be placed on the agenda first because of the many times they have already been continued, and the Commission agreed to do so. WILLIAM McCOY, ET AL Mr. McGive'rn spoke to the Commission regarding REZONING Z3 -73 the rezoning applications of William McCoy, et al and Lieb & Quaresma, et al, informing & them that these rezonings would have implica- tions on other properties in the area and fall LIEB :& QUARESMA, into the purview of "S'" (,Study) Districts. ET AL,- REZONING Accordingly, he advised going through the Z4 -73�* normal process as on other Study Districts, namely, calling in other property owners for their views and writing a report on the findings. To allow time to accomplish this study, Mr. McGivern asked that a Public Hearing be set fo'r some. time, �in April 1973. Chairman Popp asked Mr. Lieb. the representative on both rezonings,..i.f there was any emergency on. processing these rezonings, and Mr. Lieb felt there was. He ,added he did not feel a study was ne:ces;sary `as neighbors surrounding William McCoy's,.groperty approved of the rezoning request and he felt Lakeville Street was already miszoned. Tom Baker, representing one of the owners of the.parce.ls involved, did not feel a delay Of two months was warranted. • After further discussion it was determined that the first meeting in April 1973 would be agreeable for' the Public Hearing. Petaluma City Planning 'Commission Minutes, February 21, 1973 Comm. Hood made the motion. that the Public Hearing for William McCoy, et al and Lieb & Quaresma, et al requests for rezoning be { set for April 3, 1973, providing that the material is made available to the Planning Commission two weeks ahead of that date, and Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 AMENDMENTS TO Mr. McGivern explained to the.Commission ZONING ORDINANCE that because of items that were inadvertently NO. ,1072 N.C.S.: omitted and typographical errors, changes were warranted to the zoning ordinance. Mr. McGivern reviewed the changes as proposed by the staff with the Commission. Chairman Popp asked for comments from the Commissioners on suggested items and a discussion followed. Comm'. Balshaw informed the Commission that the old zoning ordinance contained a clause requiring reversion to original zoning district under certain time element conditions if development did not proceed, and he felt this clause should be put back in. Ch airman Popp opened the, Public Hearing and asked for comments from the audience. Norman Rollins asked for a definition of Planned Residential Development and Mr. McGivern explained it to him. The Public I-Learing was closed. After hearing all the facts to be presented, Comm. Schmelz made,the motion that the changes to Zoning Ordinance�No. 1072 as suggested be accepted including Comm. Ba lshaw's addition, and forwarded on to the City Council. Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES_ 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 ABSTAINED 2 n U I Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes,, February 21, 1973 SONOMA COUNTY The following referrals were submitted by REFERRALS: the Board of Zoning Adjustments of the County of Sonoma: 1. Dennis D. Jones, request for a variance to allow a reduction ction in minimum area required per dwelling unit at 2000 Western Avenue in an "A" District. 2. James F.:Sullivan Jr., request for a variance to allow a reduction in minimum area required per dwelling unit at 13 , 52 Bodega Avenue in an "A" District. An oral report was given.by Mr. Anderson on the above variance requests. The staff recommendation was to oppose these requests as the subject areas are. designated on the General Plan and the Environmental Design Plan for open space and agricultural type he requested reduction - uses, and it was felt t in site would have an urbanizing effect. Comm,. Balshaw felt that requests to accomodate existing structures should be granted but not to approve future new developments. Comm. Waters made the motion that a letter of objection be,sent to Sonoma County regarding these two variance requests and Comm. Hood seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 1 ABSENT 0 10 ADJOURNPIENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. _10-