Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/01/1973A G E N D A PE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR: MEETING �ITY CO,LTNCI L CHAMBERS, CITY _HALL PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FfA(7, ti ROLL CALL: Comm. Balsh_aw Bond Schmelz ' Waters _ Da Hood Popp MAY 1, 1973 7:30 P .1' -7 ,,. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA STAFF: j William C., McG-lv.ern,, Director of Community Development {Richard D. A, Anderson, Associate Planner ,Frank B. Gray, Associate Planner i' APPROVAL OF. MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE ENVIRONMENTAL 1. Liebe & Quaresma, et al rezoning application IMPACT request to consider rezoning from M -L District to QUESTIONNAIRE C -H District for area in the block bounded by EVALUATIONS: East "D" St., Erwin St., Jefferson St. and Lakeville St. 2. R -C zoning consideration for the,three blocks along "B" St. between Webster and Sprang Sts., 'including properties for which rezoning has been requested by William McCoy, et al. ' 3. Douglas Clegg prezoninq request for the Petaluma Industrial Park No. 2. `to ,M -L, located between the Northwestern Pacific Railroad extending north- westerly from Corona Road to the existing City limits at McDowell Road.. LIEB . & QUATTSMA, ET AL Public Hearing to cons rectuest. for rezoning of REZONING Z4-'73: Lieb & Quaresma, et al from M -L District to C -I District for area located in the block bounded by East "'D St., Erwin St., Jefferson St., and Lakeville St. CONNOLLY DEVELOPMENT Public Hearing to cons=ider request for rezoning of INC. RE-ZONING Z9 -73: Connolly Development, Inc. from R- M- 1,500 to C -C f the site located. at the northeast corner of So. McDowell Blvd. and - McKenzie Ave.. "B" ST./SPRING ST./ Public Hearing for consideration of appropriate zoning _FIEBSTER ST. /UNMAN (proposed change from R -1- 6,.5`00 District to R -C P- ' ARFX, „ ,REZONING Distract) for the three , blocks along "B” Street be- - 3. 3. tween Webster Street and Spring Street, including properties for which rezoning has been reclueste.d,by trailliam McCoy, et a1® Petaluma City P°lanni.ng Commis Agenda,,, May 1, 1973 JW- ETALUMA INbusTnAL ARK NO. 2 ;PREZONINO Zll. -73 I Public Hearing to consider application submitted by Douglas Clegg for,prezoning of the Petaluma Indus- trial.. Park No. 2 to a M -L, Light Industrial District as the first step towards °annexation procedures, for the area located between the Northwestern Pacific Rai.lroad� extending northwesterly from Corona Road to the existing City 'limits at McDowell `Road. MODIFICATIONS TO THE Continuation of Public Hearing to consider modi.fica- M.ASTER PLAN-,OF ZONING:` bons to the raster Plan of Zoning to bring it into consistency with Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S.. OTHER BOSINESS: Introduction to the Planning Commission for the pur- i pose of setting a Public Hearing for May 15, 1973 to j consider the Resolution of the Beard of Directors of ? the Sonoma Countv Water Agency establishing a policy for the processing, of requests for additional water by Agency water users. ADJOURNMENT -2- M I N U T E S PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMIS'S'ION' MAY 1, 1973 REGULAR MEETING 7 :30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm. Balshaw, Bond, Daly, Hood, Popp, Waters ABSENT: Comm. Schmela STAFF: i Wm. C. McGivern,,Dir. of Community Development Frank B. -Gray, Associate 'Planner l Richard D. A. Anderson, Associate Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of April 17, 1;973 were approved I as submitted. LIEB & OUARESr1A, ET AL - ENVIRONMENTAL .IMPACT 7 QUESTIONNAIRE EVALUATION: LIEB & nUARESMA, ET AL.- REZONING Z4 -73: i 0 The staff report recommending that the Environ- mental, Impact Questionnaire be accepted and no Environmental Impact Report be required was read. Traffic impact, future use of the lots, and lot size was discussed by members of the Commission. Comm. Hood crue.stoned. if lots were large enough for commercial development. Comm. Waters made the motion to accept the Env'iro'nmental Impact nuestionnaire and Comm. Daly seconded the motion. AYES' 4 NOES 2 ABSE14T 1 The staff report recommending -approval of the requested C -H zoning was read for the record and a sketch of a veterinary clinic which was proposed for a portion of th area was pre - sented to the Commission for review. The staff added that consideration would have to be. taken at the time of the !site design review regarding the size of the lots and the eventual land use contained thereon. The Public Hearing was opened and comments requested from the audience. Richard Rich °ard Lieb, Lieb & nuaresma, stated he represented all but one of the property owners in the requested area of rezoning. He explained to the Commission that the three substandard si,ze lots plus an adjoining `lot were under one ownership and he felt this area had better potential as a C -H District. Mr. Lieb added that the -noise problem generated by 'a veterin- ary clinic had bee.n studied and could be Petaluma,City Planning,Commission M nutes, May 1, 1973 i alleviated bv the the site, masonry tion of the roof. Proper clinic location on construction, and insula- "B" ST. /SPRING ST.,,/ WEBSTER ST .' /HINPIAN ST. AREA - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT QUESTIONNAIRE EVALUATION: The Public Hearing was closed. The Commissioners discussed the General Plan and Environmental Design Plan designations for the area,- the future land use, and the advis= ability of rezoning without a definite land 'use plan in mind for the entire area. Comm.. Daly made the motion to deny the appli- cation since it does not agree with the Environmental Desi_gn.Plan and Comm. Balshaw seconded the motion. AYES 4 NOES 2 ABSENT 1 The applicant was advised the rezoning request was denied and he had the right to appeal to the City Council w,thin. ten days. Mr. McGivern asked the Commission for a recommendation for the future use of the area. Various members of the Commission expressed that in order to rezone this.,property in dis- agreement with the EDP, it should be - shown that C -H zoning is a better plan; future development should be expressed before rezoning; and that possibly "the EDP should be studied f ir.s:t.. Questions were raised by Comm. Daly regarding the new environmental impact procedures and the order in which items should be placed on the agenda. Mr. Gray advised that the new requirements were such that a ten -day appeal relating to the Environmental Impact Negative Declaration would be required before the Commission could take final action on the actual project. The City Attorney was called upon for his.opinion regarding various aspects of the new procedures and a short discussion followed. Per. Gray advised the Commission he wished to review the entire procedures later- on in the .evening. The staff report was read for .the determination of the Planning Commission whether or not this project would- have_ - a significant effect on _ the environment. ,2_ Petaluma city Planning Commission Minutes, May 1, 1'973 �,. Comm. .Hood asked if accep'tan`ce of. the Impact Questionnaire at this time meant that an environmental impac't evaluation would not be required for future developments. He was advised by the staff that although a single- t family dwelling was categorically. exempt, any addition of another unit or any other proposal y calling for a. substantial change would be pre - seated to. the: Commission for determination of i a possible impact.. Comm,. Daly made the motion to direct the Director of Community Development to prepare a negative declaration regarding this project and Comm. Balshaw seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 "B" S,T•. /SPRING ST./ The staff report was read and slides depicting WEBSTER 8T. /HIN1'1AN typical homes in the area shown. The Commis - ST. AREA?= sion was also furnished photographs of the REZONING -73: area homes and an illustration showing which existing units would be legal under R -C, which would be-non-conforming under R =.C, and where additiona'l.units would be possible under R -C zoning. Mr. Anderson added that he had attended a meeting of interested property owners on April 26,•1973 at which various questions regarding density and traffic had been raised. It was noted that most of the objections to this project were from people outside of the proposed zoning area. A recess was called at 9:35 p.m. and the meeting readjourned at 9 :40 p.m. The Public Hearing was opened and the audience asked for comments, pr.o or con. The following individuals spoke in opposition of the rezoning: Gerald Stewart, 24 7th St.; Joyce 'Witte, 714 B Street; Roger Hoffman, 84.1 B Street; Mrs. Daily, 824 B Street; Marge Spandri, 23 Hinman Street. The following comments were voiced by these individuals. Spring Street is not a. City Street. Spring Street and;Fair Street are not in good. conditio and co.uld,not handle any more traffic. B Street has a high usage now and is not pre - sent1v safe for children. The noise level in the area was bad and would increase with more traffic. Petaluma High School will be a -3- i Petaluma City Planning Commission M'inut'es, May 1, 1,973 4 -yea•r high school next .year and this will result in approximately 586 more students, meaning also additional 'bus and car traffic. i `When :the apartment complex on Douglas St, is finished.,, the traffic will also increase. Parking is not adequate,at the school now and With the additional'students projected for next year,• it would be worse. Parking on the street was already difficult. It was felt if the zoning designation was to be changed to make it logically similar to what, ex st•s, there would be pressure for multiple dwellings, and that-the area could not accommodate the.po,ssible 21 additional units that could bei`built. Concern was expressed that a ni mber of lots could be bought tip, amortized and .then later developed with higher density, It was also felt that Any further development of this area would destroy the aesthet c,s.of the present type of neighborhood. A drainage problem was alleged because of the slope involved and it was felt further development could intensity the problem.. Concern was also expressed about a possible in- crease in taxes because of the proposed zoning of R -C.. Comment was al's'o made that this area was a1 -ready in violation of the General `Plan and the Environmental Design Plan and that the proposed rezoning would only make it further in violation. The question of why We•b.ster Street was .included on the agenda was raised.. Richard Lieb spoke representing William McCoy. He explained that Mr. McCoy had owned his i. parcel of land for quite some time and that the other two parcel owners had agreed to the R -C rezoning to square off the zoning line. He added he 'realized that ..it g °enerally was not good to spot zone, but perhaps it should be done in this case. Mr. Lieb,clarified that R -C zoning is hot a high- density factor, only duplexes, and that the McCoy p•roj did not call for garage doors • 'fronting on Hinman St. as parking would be to the rear of the unit. Mr. Lieb stated he was not pro or con regarding- the rezoning of the entire two -block area, but was only interested in the rezoning of the three parcels. The staff brought out the ,fact that although 21 additional units could be constructed in -4- Petaluma +.City Planning Commission Minutes, ;May 1, 1973; i the area it was not theoretically possible i bec'aus'e of restrictions posed by design and i! setback'requirements and odd - shaped lots. The Superintendent o'f Schools had verbally advised �I that school facilities for the addi- ; i tional students would . not pose a problem. It was explained that, Webster- 'Street was included on the agenda because it was included in the orig,ina-1 study area; however, it was decided f� not advisable to include it in the rezoning. request. The Public Hearing was closed. i� It was - clarified that Spring Street is, in fact, a Cit�,r street not up to City stand - ard_s. Comm. Balshaw expressed his feeling that the zoning.was too ; intensive and Comm. Daly felt the lines of the EDP should be adhered'to. Comm. Daly made the motion to deny the applica- tion without prejudice.'as it is not in compliance with the EDP. Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0. ABSENT 1 PETALUMA�INDUSTRIAL The staff report recommending that the Planning PARK NO.12 PREZ.ONING Commission determine, that the project will not - ENVIRONMENTAL have,a significant effect on the environment IMPACT QU,ESTIONNAIRE,: had b.een .f.orwarded to the Commission. Comm. Daly made the mot ` on -to direct the Director of Commun Development to prepare a negative declaration;r,egarding this project and Comm. Balshaw seconded the motion.` AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 PETALUDtA 'INDUSTRIAL T he staff report,recommending approval of the PARK NO. ,.2 PRE'ZON°ING application of Douglas" Clegg for the prezonng Z11 -73: of the Petaluma Industral-Pa"rk No. 2 to a Light Indus- trial District,, as the first step towards annexation procedures, had been forwarded to the Commission for review. The Public Hearing was opened. No comments were-offered from the audience and the Public Hearing was closed. 'Comm. Balshaw felt the'Commiss.ion should be aware that there is an excess: of industrial -5- Petaluma.�City Planning Commission Minutes, May 1, 1973 �? land in the City. He was advised this was the only large parce -L- available for develop - ment adjoining the.railroad. The applicant ' was asked how much of the land was proposed to developed,at this time and ion Anderson, the project engineer, an =swered; present plans were for 10 :acres out' of. 'the total of 40 and that there were n.o immediate plans for the i balance 'of the property. Public, improvements we're discussed and also the continuation of Nort'h..MeDowel,l Blvd through the property,. Mr: Walter-Smith, representing ou ; las Clegg, g g informed the Commission then were selling off parcels: and the street would be improved as the units are developed. The Commission wa reminded that the land is property zoned and could be processed through the County. Also, the staff felt it would accomplish a logical extension of the City industr;ia_l area and of North McDowell Blvd., and would,also bring in -more economics for the City. 0 Comm. Bond made the 'motion to the pre - zoning request and Comm.. .Waters seconded the motion. AYE'S 5 NOES '1, ABSENT 1 F .. CONNOLLY DEVELOPMENT, The staff report recommending approval of the INC. REZONING Z9 - 73: rezoning from R - M - 1,,500 to ,C =C for the site locat at. the northeast corner of So. McDowell Blvd, and-McKenzie.Awe., was read. A letter from Connolly Development dated April 30, 1973 regarding the status of the EXXON Service Station on South McDowell was also read. The Public Hearing was opened and comments requested from the audience or applicant -. James Parrish, Connolly Development, stated he would answer any questions and explained that an.agree"ment with Humble Oil was now in Texas for approval to relocate the station further back on the site. He they were looking_ for a site to move the,apartment to. Comm. Bond asked what was projected for the apart- ment site and Mr. Parari replied it was being considered for an office financial center arid, that the Bank -of America-would be adjacent to it. .r. Petaluma'-City Planning Commission 'M-inutes Ma.V 1, 1973 The , Public Hearing was closed. Comm.. Hood made the motion to approve -the reclue,sted rezoning and Comm. Bond seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 OTHER BUS4NESS: The Commission was reque -sted to set a Public Hearing to consider the Resolution of the Bo,a_rd of Directors of t'he ; Sonoma County Water Ag- ,enc;y establishing a polio' for the domestic water sup ply needs of the City of Petaluma based on the projected water project versus City growth estimates and growth control "- ±olicie's . Comm;. Daly made the motion to set the Public Hearing 'for Plav 15 1973 and , Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 Discus followed regarding holding Planning Commission meetings every Tuesday evening dur- ing the month of: May to handle the many applications and other Wending matters of the Planni Department, an'd the. Commissioners decided to follow this course of action MODIF'ICAT` -IONS TO Due to the late hour, the Commission determined THE MASTER PLAN to further continue the> modifications to the OF ZONING: Master Plan of Zoning t0 ;.bring it into consis- tency -with Zoning Ordinance No. 1072, N .C.S. until the special.meeting on May 8, 1973. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. � ' airma ATTEST: -7-