Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/17/1973A G E N 'D A PETP;LUMA'CITY, PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, * GULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. ITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, PETALUMA, PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL: Comm. Balshaw Bond Daly Hood Schmelz Waters Popp STAFF: William C. McGivern,, Director of Community Development fichard D. A. Anderson Associate Planner Frank B. Gray►, Associate Planner 1973 CALIFORNIA APPROVAL OF MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE INTRODUCTION OF REZONING APPLICATIONS TO. THE, PLANNING COMMISSION DONALD WAI ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, STATEMENT EVALUATION & SITE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT: Introduction to the Planning Commission of appli- cation.submitted by Connolly Development, Inc. for the purpose of setting a Public ;Hearing to consider rezoning from R -M- 1,500, Multi - Family Residential District to .0 -C, Central Commercial District for site at the northeast corner - of So. McDowell Blvd. and McKenzie Ave. 2. Introduction to the Planning Commission of appli- cation by Douglas Clegg for the purpose o£ setting a Public Hearing to consider the prezoning of the Petaluma Industrial Park No.. 2 to a M- L,'Light Industrial District, as the first step towards annexation for the area located between the Northwestern Pacific Railroad extending northwesterly from ; Corona Road to the existing City limits at McDowell Road. Proposed.977 square foot office building to be constructed on the same _si.te with two existing resi dences to be located at 42.1 Petaluma Blvd. North at its intersection with Kent Street, OTHER BUSINESS: Appeal by Atlantic & Pacific Building Corp. of app,lica ' tion for s -gn permits for Baywood Arms signs located at the intersection. of Highway 101. North and 'Lakeville Highway and at'l105.Gumwood Lane. Planning Commission Agenda, April 17, 1973 , Q=RR BUSINESS: Consideration and action by Commission on a request W tinued) for A private road on a parce. I I of land located on Grant Avenue, MO DIFICATIONS OD,HICATIONS TO THE Public H'Oarinq- to consider modifications to the MASTER PLAN OF Master Plah of Zoning, to bring-it into consistency ZONING: with Zoning ordinance No. 1072 N.C.*S. ADJOURNMENT -2- i^ l M.T N U T E S PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 17, REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. CITY'COUNCIL CHAMBERS,- CITY HALL PETALUMA, PRESENT: Comm. Bond., Daly, Popp, Waters ! ABSENT: Comm. Ba'lshaw, Hood, Schmelz STAFF: Frank B. Gray, Associate Planner Richard D. A. Anderson,.Associate Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: CORRESPONDENCE: 1973 CALIFORNIA T:he.mi.nutes of April 3, 1973 were approved as submitted. The Commission was advised by Mr. Gray of a conference to be held by the California State University of'Hayward on Solid Waste Management on April 27, 1973. Any Commis - sioner wishing to attend should contact the Planning Dept. for more information. APPEAL BY M & M ICE The Commission wa reminded by Mr. Anderson VENDING MACHINE CO. that on April 3, 1973 they had conditionally - USE Ul -73: approved Use Permit U1 -73 for M & M Ice j Vending Machine Company. The applicant has discussed the undergrounding of electrical facilities with the Assistant City Engineer who informed him that the underground dis- trict doe include the site on which the ice vending machine is to be located. Mr. Moran had also been informed by'P,G.& E. t that it would cost approximately $500 to obtain an underground electrical hookup, and felt this requirement was unreasonable inasmuch as he only has a month to month Lease and no assurance that he would be located at the site long enough to amortize such a co.st_. The applicant at this time is requesting that the Commission consider an overhead drop from the pp-le acz:oss, the. street to the fixture on top of the 'ice vending box. Mr. Anderson recommended that if the I Commi's'sion agreed to this request the con - diti.on- should - pr.ovide for re- evaluation of this hookup during the annual review. of thz use permit,'or in•the event that other development went into the area within the next year, that the applicant would be required at that time to make the under- ground hookup. Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, Anril. 17, 1973 Comm. Waters made the motion to approve the overhead wires on a temporary basis, with the recommendations of staff included as conditions, as it does-not seem feasible to require a. permanent hookup at this time. Comm. Daly seconded the motion. AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3 INTRODUCTION OF The Commission was advised that all necess- REZ'ONING APPLICATIONS ary documents had been furnished them to TO THE PLANNING. set the•Public Hearing date for Connolly COMMISSION: Development, Inc. rezoning request from R -M -1,500 to C -C District for site located at the north corner of S. McDowell Blvd. and McKenzie Aver Comm. Daly requested that the Director of Community Development inform the Commission why action had not taken place regarding the EXXON service s- ;tction removal to widen Sa McDowell Blvd. adjacent to the Washington Square Shopping Center. Mr. Jim Parrish, Connolly Development, Inc. addressed the Commission and informed them that permission had not been obtained from Humble Oil Company to widen the .street and thereby remove the service station, and that they were presently negotiating with them to find another site for the station. i Comm,.. Waters did not agree with the wordage of Item #8 of the staff report and requested i it be changed before the next meeting to clearly reflect that subject apartment building dwelling units were the units to be relocated. The Planning Commission agreed to set the Public Hearing for May 1, 1973 and requested that problem of EXXON service station `be resolved and reported before this matter is considered. The Commission was advised'that all necess- ary documents had been furnished them to set the Public Hearing date for the prezon- ing request for Petaluma Industrial Park No. 2 submitted by Douglas Clegg to a M -L Light Industrial District for the area Q!M Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, April 1.7, 1973 located between the Northwestern Pacific Railroad: extending northwesterly from Corona Road to 'the existing City limits at McDowell Road. ,r Comm. Waters questioned why more industrial land wa -s being considered and Mr. Anderson replied that this is a portion of the Petaluma Industrial.. Park and that the intent is that development would be of a large scale that would not suitably fit into other areas.. Mr.. Gray added that it is consistent with the EDP and would provide the City with a through connection for McDowell Blvd. N. The Commission determined to set the Public Hearing for May 1, 1973, i; DONALD WAITE - The proposal calls for construction of a ENVIRONMENTAL ASS'ES,S'' 977 square. foot office building on the same MENT STATEMENT site with two existing residences at 42 EVALUATION &, S,ITE Petaluma Blvd. North at its intersection DESIGN REVIEW with .Kent Street. Mr. Anderson explained COMMITTEE REPORT: to the Commission that it would be logical to hear the report on the EAS and continue on with the site design review report as they are closely related„ He then read the EAS which recommended that an EIR be prepared as: the - propos°al to combine an office use site so close. to the non - _conforming dwell- .ng units could have an adverse influence on the environment. Mr. Anderson then gave the oral report of the Site Design Review Com- a mittee recommending that the Planning Comm. act without prejudice in not approving the proposed site design inasmuch. as existing uses on the site are non - conforming and further development is not possible until these non-conforming aspects are corrected or removed- It was also the staff's recom -, mendation that.applicant provide elevations and a perspective sketch of development to refer to the full Commission for determina- tion. Comm.- Waters added that he,did not concur with the recommendation of the staff to position the proposed building with the long dimension facing Petaluma Blvd, North and the parking area behind the building. Donald Waite, the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated,he did not feel that -3- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, April 17, 1973 paragraph 25- --4,01 applied because he did not intend to remodel or renovate the existing structure. Mr. Gran informed him it was the.feeling of the Planning Department that it did apply, There are two residences on the site and Mr. `Wait'e -has his office in the basement of one of them. After the new office building %'s completed he will move into it and thereby: expand the residential use of the existing building. The interpre- tation was that it would be a change in the use of the cite and it is the intent of the ordinance where 'a' use is changed on a non- conforming site that the site be brought into conformity. The crux of the matter is that it is all one property. Mr. Gray further explained that the entire site must be considered when` dealing with a develop - ment as when a portion of the site is changed, the entire site is thereby changed. Mr. Waite stated.the staff did not mention the reliability of the.answers to the EAS but required an E-IR and added he felt the EAS was adequate. Comm. Daly asked what was intended for the rest of the site and Mr. Waite said'that hopefully it would be developed commercially; however the-two residences still had ten to fifteen years of serviceability left in them. Mr. Gray stated the driveway and land ti use could constitute a traffic problem and this should be addressed through an EIR,. i and he felt the Commission should not take action until this information was furnished. Mr. Anderson further explained that the two existing buildings are approximately 50 years old and still have life in them but no conforming life, and that building code would not now allow those buildings to be constructed on that site. It was felt by the staff that E considerations should include the number of buildings; construction of the new' building; and driveway and traffic problems. "The construction of the-.building by' itself would not pose a problem if the two residences were removed, but overcrowding of the site create's.a problem requiring an EIR. Mr. Waite stated he,did not agree with the environment being affected off of the site and felt State guidelines made this building Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, April 17, 1973 categorically exempt. Mr. Gray replied that Petaluma Blvd.., Kent St. and the surrounding neighborhood would be involved traffic wise and therefore there would' be an,environmental effect off the :sate. Comm. Waters added that no sketch of the office building was shown and -this definitely has an impact on the ` environment. Mr. Waite felt it was a reason- able plan, a reasonable project and that a reasonable interpretation should be applied. Mr. Ernest Curtis .f_rom the audience commented that under the present concept of environmen- tal impact none of the existing developments on.Petaluma Blvd. would now be granted and felt this was a false ,concept. He added that areal estate office is ideally a low impact . traffic usage. Mr. Gray expressed that an EIR should be sub- mitted showing what the effect will be on the site and neighborhood. Comm. Bond asked the applicant the reason he came to site design without,showing what the building would look like. Mr. Waite 'answered that the building could,not reasonably be designed until it was known how it would.be located on the site. He added it would b'e on the order of the office' building on Fifth-Street for Behrens, Nelson and Mackey. Comm. Waters made the motion to follow the staff recommendation and require an EIR. The motion was defeated for lack of a.second. p , Comm. Daly felt this development is a non - significant development that is called out in. - - the environmental laws and an EIR is therefore not' Accordingly, he made a motion that the EAS be accepted. Comm. Bond seconded the motion. AYES 3 NOES 1 ABSENT 3 Comm. Waters made the motion to follow the staff r.eco . enda,tion that the Planning Commission act without prejudice in not approving the proposed site design for reasons of non - conformance as stated in the staff report and Comm. Bond.seconded the motion. AYES 3 NOES 1 ABSENT 3 It was clari:f;ed that the terminology " without prejudice" meant that the applicant could make a resubmittal to the Planning Commission. -5- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, April 17, 1973 AYES 4 NQES 0 ABSENT 3 9. APPEAL BY A & P The Commission was informed by Mr. Gray that BLDG CORP - they.had been furnished the staff report and SIGY PERMITS: its recommendation of denial of the appeal to issue a sign permit.based on the findings required by Article 21, Section 204.35, Section 204.36, and,S'ect ;ion 204.41. He added that.a correction to.the report regarding the sign located at 110.;5 Gumwood Lane was required., namely, that.the sign was originally construe- ted as a directional sign for the "Monarch Homes Subdivision", not the Baywood Arms Apartments. Mr. Jim Luis, Vice President of A` & P - Building Corporation informed the Commission that the sign located at the inter - section of Lakeville Highway and the Highway 101 northbound.offramp was originally con - structed for Boise Cascade. A & P rented the sign space and signed a year lease with the belief that there was a valid sign permit on it and then had it repainted for the Baywood Arms,, only to find out there was some. confusion as to the renewal of the permit;. He added that with the completion of the sec - ond Phase of the Baywood Arms Apartments, it would be desirable to keep these two signs for approximately six more months. Comm. Daly remarked that the review of the Ryan signs for conformance to City standards had been the prerunner to checking on these two signs; however, he,stated that he had no objection to a six months' amortization period. Mr. Gray explained that Ryan's signs were legal existing ones and that the sign permits on these two signs had been allowed to expire, renewal was never applied for, and at least a year had elapsed. He stated that the Commi,ssion,could'possibly grant an amorti- nation period if they could find the ordinance is unreasonable inits application. Comm. Daly -made the motion that the sign per- mit be allowed until November ,1, 1973 to allow for amortization, and Comm. Bond seconded the motion. AYES 4 NQES 0 ABSENT 3 9. Petaluma City Planning ,Commis's;ion M'inutes, April 17, 1973 NEWMAN B. NELSON Mr. Gray informed the Commission that they REQUEST FOR PRIVATE were being asked . to review -a request for a STREET AT 412 GRANT ST.: private street at 412 Grant St., and either concur or not con:cu_r with the recommendation of the City Engineer and the Fire Department, and that the matter only concerned the street. I't-is the private,,street is adequate and that the agreement as prepared will not jeopardize the City. Mr. Anderson explained.to the Commission that as indicated in-the Subdivision Ordinance, a private street -is not normally permitted; however, if the, Planning Commission finds that the most logical development of the land re- quires that lots be- created which are served by a private street.,. then such access may be ' recommended by-the Planning Commission, He went on to explain that.the parcel is to be split into four parcels with two at the rear; therefore, public street standards would render portions of -the parcel unusable while a private street could solve the problem and is workable. Improvements are a requirement on the final parcel: map and the plan for ownership and maintenance is f the approval of the City Council. The City Attorney had reviewed the - ,agreement and found it to be acceptable with the- deletion of the last paragraph. Comm. Waters made the motion to recommend approval of the private street and the.main- tenance agreement and Comm. Bond seconded the motion.. AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3 MODIFICATIONS TO Mr. Gray informed the Commission that,mee`t THE MASTER PLAN ings with property owners had been held and OF ZONING: approximately 50,0` were in attendance. The report to the Commission has been - broken down into three categories in relation to State Planning 1_awm The first category is an area where we feel that simple-name changes are required., merely changing the name - of the zone but the basic uses therein. The other two will be boundary line adjustments to make logical lines within zoning districts and also requests of certain properties and requests of staff for rezoning of certain properties, especially where we have former zoning districts which no 'longer exist, and -7- Petaluma City 'Planning Commission Minutes, April 17; 1973 this will require rezoning notification. The areas will be discussed one at, a time to obtain the. concensus-of Commission on -each area to determine if the p'ropos.ed -new designa- tion of the area -is. appropriate. Public. Hear ing was opened-.and closed after discussion of each area. AreajNo. 1 : Comm. .,D a made the motion to change the designation- of • th'is location on N . - McDowell , Blvd from R -M -1 5Q0and R-1-10,0'00 to R -M -G. and .Comm . seconded the motion.. AYES- 4 NOES' 0 ABSENT 3 Area .+No . , 2 : Comm. Waters made the -motion - to change the. designation Of' this location on N. McDowell Blvd., from R=M= 1,500 to"R -M -G and Comm. Bond seconded - . the ; motion. AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3 Area -No. 3 6 The ;Commission -was advised that property ad- joining be considered for appropriate zoning designation at a- future meeting; however-, recent contact with Lieb, representing Pau`lucc,i, DeMartini & Howe; indicated that some of the -owners Wished to withdraw :..their - rezoning request. Action would be taken as soon as an official withdrawal is received. Comm. Bond made the motion to- change the designation-of-this location of East,'Washington and Ellis Street. -f -rom R -M -1,500 to R -M -G ; and Comm. Daly - seconded the motion. AYES 4 NOES 0 >_ABSENT 3 Area ,No. 4 : Area Noy. 4 was -- discus!sed with the Commission; however; no action was taken, because the property owners (Connolly Development,, Inc.) currently- havp.an, application on file to change the zoning of-this property which will be up for Public Hearing at the next Commis- sion - meeting Area;No. ,5 e Comm , Daly felt the Commission. should be advised regarding the delay completion of the Texaco station at the corner of Perry Lane and Baywood -Drive . Comm. Daly made the motion to change the designation-of-this-.location on Baywood Dr. from-R---M-1,500 to R -M -G- and Comm-Waters seconded the motion.. AYES 4 V NOES 0 ABSENT 3 Petaluma City Planning'Commi , ssion.Minutes, April 17,1973 Area No. 6: Mr. Gray clarified that a district could be placed a "S" Study District for a period ' of 8 months: Comm.. Waters_ made the motion -to change th.e designation of this location on Petaluma Blvd. .South from R- M- 1,50'0 to a "S" Study District, and Comm. Daly seconded the motion,. AYES 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT 3 Area INo. 8 : Comm. Bond made the motion to change the designation of this location on Douglas St. from R- M- 1,500 to R -M -G and Comm. Daly ' seconded the motion. AYES 4: NOES 0 ABSENT 3 Area'No. 11 : Comm. Daly made the motion to change the designation of this location on.Keokuk St. from R -M- 1,500 to R -M -G and Comm.'Waters seconded the mot -ion. _ AYES - 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3 Area No. 12 : Comm. Waters made: the motion to change the designation of this location on Magnolia Ave. from R- M- 1,5.00_ to R, -M':G and Comm. Bond seconded the motion.. AYE'S 4 NOES 0, ABSENT 3 AreatNo. 27 : Mr. Parent asked the Commission to consider. this He stated he was agreeable to C -H on Petaluma Blvd. North, but wondered - if "S"' Study District might be more suitable for Magnolia Avenue. Mr. Gray replied that designating the. area a "S Study-,District ' would freeze a:evelopment until a complete. study could be made and it is desirable to ! put property into this designation only when property owners -have shown that they have definite plans. for the,property. He assured Mr.'P;arent that appropriate control over possible objectionable conditional uses he was concerned about in a C -H Di- strict would be maintained' as any future requests would come before the Planning- Commission. It was the concensus of the staff that any. - future changes for this area could be best accomplished by individual zoning requests. Comm. Waters 'made the motion to change the designation o'f this location on Petaluma.Blvd. North from C -S to C -H and Comm. Bond seconded the motion.. AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3 Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, April 17, 1973 ADJOURNMENT: r i The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Areas not completed on the above Public Hearing for the modifications to the Master Plan Of Zoning will b&'.dontinued at the next regular meeting, Mr.. Gray wished to express the thanks of the staff to Comm. Daly for his response to a telephone request fo attend this meeting to complete the.quorum. -10-