Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/22/1973r � A G E N D A PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 22, 1973 SPECIAL MEETING 7:30 F.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL_: Comm. Balshaw Bond Daly Hood Schmelz Waters Popp STAFF: William C. McGivern, Director of Community Development Richard D. A. Anderson, Associate Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Manuel Amaral's proposal for commercial QUESTIQNNAIRE buildings to be located at 4246 Petaluma EVALUATION: Boulevard North in a C -H District. SITE DESIGN REVIEW ® 1. Lieb & Quaresma's proposed Petaluma East COMMITTEE REPORTS: Medical Center at 1580 East Washington 'Street. 2. Addition to Western Motors main build- ing at 1221 Petaluma Boulevard North. 3. Santa Fe- Pomeroy, Inc. proposed combined shop and warehouse building on Hopper St_ and proposed bulkhead at the Mahogany Basin. 4. Kenneth Johnson's proposed site plan for three duplexes at the southeast corner of East "D" Street and Payran Street. QANTAS DEVELOPMENT Public Hearing to consider application of CORPORATION' Qantas Development Corporation for rezoning REZONING Z8' -73': from P.C.D. District to P.U.D. to accommodate Phase 1 of the proposed Planned Community located between McKenzie Ave. and McGregor Ave. adjacent to Washington Creek. GREENBRIAR UNIT #2 Qantas Development Corporation's Tentative TENTATIVE MAP: Map for the proposed Greenbriar Unit #2 Planned.Community Development located on the southeast side of Washington Square Shopping Center and McDowell Park, extending easterly along Washington Creek to McGregor Avenue. ADJOURNMENT M I N U T E S P_ETAI;UMA 10 PECIAL, ME EMI-14 - ITY COUNCI -CHAMBERS COMMISSION CITY HALL - MAY 1971 7:30 P.M. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm. Bond, *,Daly, Hood, Water's Popp arrived at 8::45 P.M. ABSENT:. Comm, , Balshaw, Schmelz STAFF: William C. McG Director of Community Development, Ric,�hard,.D. A. AnderSon, Associate Plan I ner APPROVAL OF M1NUTES: The Minutes of the May 8, 1973 meeting were approved at submitted. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Manuel Amaral's,proposal for commercial buildings to QQE'$T-IONNAIRE be l.ocated 4246 Petaluma Boulevard North in a C-H EVALUAT : d1 S'tri'ct The,Environmonta-1 Impact-QuestiQnnaire was 'reviewed j. and the 'recommendations of the - ,Community Development Director - that the Planning Commission - f ind `and determine that this project would not have a signifi- cant effect on thepenvironment were presented with supporting documentation. Comm. Water's questioned,. how the impact on! the environ- s ment - could be* de w'i'thout' knowing ,w hat would actually gb the building-' 'Mr. McGiverri informed him that *- We have . some idea of -the` use because the Zoning', dii - trict provides onlry'qertain land_'uses. , In addition, the -character o:f the building -i structure lim the use to those' uses ;" normally id fdund in - - a.C-H -commercial district . the time of, applIcation-, for. -a commercial license by the prospective o ccup ant � e th" use -will be identi fied. A great deal af ensued regarding the future use of ,the buildings and 'adequacy of the!pcirking spaces. tha"t this would depend entirely upon the: Q aqeiiand-it was their contention that sufficient ­s J p�qe pdrkin � s s,had been proposed.* mm C 6 . W made . de the 'motion that the Commission cruire. an EIRt - dsed on possible 'impact on traffic - � l jAe� jconoinics,. ki're p ' t t :Loh rbtec -' r wate and sewage service s, protection, and Comm k6ba* seconded' the motion. AYE'S 2 NOES 2 ABSENT- 3' ' Some 'additional diLSCUssibn was then pursued on the matter. Petaluma City.-Planning Commi,ssion'Minutes, May 22, 1973 . Mr. Amaral informed -the Commission that all of the factors concerning the EIR_had already been taken care of ,as parcel map conditions of approval. He further explained to the. Commission that the pro - pased commercial buildfh,gs�'were quite similar to those, be ng : constructed "in- Lgn,acio., South of Novato; and ati ,the. present time occupancy had not been .established;, however, it would-be whatever is permissible with - the zoning. S taff informed the Commission that.the City Engineer and Sonoma County, Public Works Department saw no problem in- sofar as traffic, and reiterated that a commercial . license would.have to be granted before occupancy of any buildings. Comm: 'Bond made the motion that the Planning Com- mission find and „determine that the ,subje,ct project will have a significant effect.upon the environs- meet- and.that the Director of Community Development should be directed to prepare and post a Negative Declaration reflecting_ the. ;Commission ° s decision. The:moti,on was seconded by Comm. Waters. AYES 3 NOES 1. ABSENT. 3 SITE DESIGN REVIEW l., Lieb. -& Q.uaresma's proposed Petaluma East Medical COMMITTEE REPORTS: Center at 1580 East Washington Street: Staff read the recommendations of the Site Design Review Committee for approval with conditions as cited, Inasmuch as a variance was a condition of approval of the site design this report was also read recommending approval, Dick Lieb, Lieb & Quaresma, gave an oral presentation on the, medical...center and its ,uses, and showed the Commission an architectural concept of the „ bui ding. Comm. Bond made the motion to grant the variance .reducing the front yard setback requirement from 2'5 feet to 15 feet and reducing the required parking spaces from 42 to 40. Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3 Comm, Graters made the motion to approve the site design with conditions as cited'and Coznm.Hood seconded the motion. AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3 -2- Petaluma. City Planning, CommissIon Minutes,i. May 22 J-9 • 2.. A,dd-itlon to. Western Motors mal-11 bullding at 1221 Petaluma Boulevard No- .The report- of the Site Design Re-view Committee recommendin.g approval was read by the 'staff. The appl.icant raised the question of 'w was meant nt by screening and also stated t h hat tey wished to do with the entrance on North Pet,a,lurna B(.D as it was a definite safety haaara-, and only have the entrance on Cemetery Lane'.. The. staff informed- the applicant the ' de - of the entrance was acceptable from their. standpoint and explained that decorative screening would be on the open automobile display-parking area, not less than 30 inches nor more than 42 inches in he-ight. A discussion regarding the entrances ensued. Comm. Hood Made the motion to approve the site I ndii d and � cotons as cite to include design w t - - r the request for the deletion of the customer entrance on,N6rth Petaluma Blvd., and Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES 4 NOES * 0 ABSENT 3 3. Santa Fe Inc. proposed combined shop and warehouse building on H 'St . and proposed bulkhead at the Mahogany'8asin: The report of the Site Design ;Review Committee re'corrar approval with conditions as cited was read by the staff. It was emphasized that if the applicant. chose not to construct at least 13 . feet, above mean sea level to provide protection from flooding to the contents o,f the building/ a statement should be submitted to the City Attorney assuming all liability for any damage to the subject property due to flooding and waiving -ng any damage claims against the City. The applicant was asked if he understood the conditions and he answered in the affirmative. Comm, Waters made the motion to approve the site design with conditions as cited and Comm. Bond seconded the motion. AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3 4.' Kenneth Johnson's proposed site plan for three duplexes at the southeast cornet of East "D" Street and Rayran Street: The r4,por of the Site Design Review .Committee -3_ re approval with conditions as cited was Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes,, May 22, 1973 read b' the _ The applicant questrio bd the y ---- I n public improvements required and was i by the staff he would have to check with the -City Engineer , for the , fi.c requiZbmehtsit C'errm. ., Hood questioned the. 25 foot turn . a:kound/. back .around space . into the, . carport and the staff informed him - it would be changed to 26 feet. Comm. Bond made-the motion to approve,the site design with conditioaa as cited and Comm.. Hood seconded the motion. AYES 5' NOES 0 ABSENT 3 QANTAS DEVELOPMENT Mr..aMcGivern,-gave.the staff report and reminded the-, CORPORATI Commiisi ion -,,, that the City Council had set - -the density REZONING Z8­73: 'for this development-at- un,its per acre that the E IR h,a-d,.been filed.- at this time -the PC'D� was approved and had'been accepted by the City The Planning staff recommended approval of the PUD as submitted. The He was - opened and comments requested from,the audience.. No questions were raised and the applicant he had nothing to add but available, for comments. Comm, ID'aly''asked if the -office building portion and si.ncfle­family, units were -to go 'In, at this time and the applicant ,informed him they were not. The "staff furthef-ekplained to the ,Comm ission that only the multi-family units in accordance -w-ith the allotment- as appro by the City Council .w,6re xto' go in at"A - this time,, , and . that development of the single - family un'it's and, the, remainder of the mu-lti- f aml,ly units - would' be dependent upon a future -allocation quota The applicant informed the Commission :that plans were-being ,coordinated for the office building phase, but were not We-,finite as yet. Comm, Daly made the motion to approve the requested PUO.re,zoning and Comm. wa'ters seconded the motion A YES 5 -NOES 0 ABSENT 2 GREENBRIAR UNIT #2 QAnta Corporati,on's Tentative MAP for the TENTATIVE MAP: proposed Gr'eenbriar Unit .#2 Planned Community De,ve'lopment located on ..the ,southeast side of Washington 0 Square-Shopping CentoE�r,and McDowell exten - ding. easterly along Washington. to McGregor Avenue was considered. -4- Petaluma,City Planning Commisslon Minutes, May 22, 1973 The 'land uses encompassed -by the area of the - TehtatiVe Map were explained by Mr. Mci7.ivern,. who also read the conditions� of approval as listed' in r the report of the, Directo of' Community' DeVe1opment to the Planning Commission. He -informed the :Co'mm'is- sibn, that with regard to item #15 concerning 'land- scap.ing that these plans could go back before, the Conmiasion or could be taken care; of by the Planning Department, whichever the Commission chose told6. Cha Popp asked if the applicant understood the conditions,or had anything to add. Mr. Jon Joslyn, Qantas Development Corporation, presented a concept of the land use:s, and a model.of the proposed landscaping to the that they took exception to the following conditions of approval. 1,. Plans had been presented for 6,0-foot lots 65-foot as requested by the conditions• , :of - approval for th 1 5 -foot units;:.howe' ver, he stated the 15-foot sideyard restrictions would be maintained if they would be allowed to -retain the 60-foot lots as proposed.. 2. They were prepared to pay half the cost of construction for the two bridges and.understood that money on de .from ,prev , was to be utilized, and requested that-the City ,pay l/ of the cost. 3. It was not possible to extend,Park Lane down to McGregor in the -first phase, of dev&T a t opmen, The -applicant was informed that the : que'sti'Oft"Of" the bridge construction and the' �tim'ing of Park - "L�a:ne ''would have to, 'be' referred to the City Council - as it - wa s a e - i question of' economics and."the Planning Coi=ks - s on could not act .on-that-matter., but, cou-2:d state the. actual conditions required-for'the entire sub- division. The applicant was asked how much the bodges' would I cost and .. reDlied 'that it w6uld be $35,00'0 each and that $8,1'00 was on deposit' for one bridge and $10,750 for the Mr. O'Nee 'stated there would be adequate access, for rbsidents. Hof the multi-family units proposed and that extending Park. Lane through on the first stage ,of development would only create traffic from the school' area. With regard to the.&O-foot lots, the applicant advi ' sed that neither the Committee nor the Planning staff could approve anything to the Subdivision Ordita_nce or the Zoning' 'Ok4444ce,, The , Planning'Commiss'lon-cou'la.make an exce P ion determining that . .the -.prop.os;ed, lots could be ju I - _5= Petaluma C ity Planning Commission Minutes, May 2.2 1973 lessened in width;; hbWever, the developer would have to give lustification for this variance from the subdivision C)j_dinance. Mr. Joslyn stated.he.would,like to make such a request at this time.. Mr. Bob O'Neel, Young America Homes, stated he understood ,the S.ubdivision.Committee had approved the 60 -foot lot size during their meeting . and.the entire development had been geared accordingly. He added, if they had realized that. 65 -foot lots would have to be adhered to they would have not planned such a large area for the multi.- family portion of the pro - ject and that to change the lot size now would mean 1 starting all over with their plans. The applicant fur:ther,brou'ght out that there were a total of 33 60- foot lots, the narrowest of which was 155 feet deep, and the- smsllest lit b eing 6,9,. -00 sq. ft., and that the 15 -foot sidey.ard restriction would be maintained. I Because of his absence from this meeting, Comm. Balhaw had written -a memo to the Planning Commission informing them that the City Bikeways Committee and the Consultant performing the study had indicated a possible bike trail through this property. A great-deal of .discussion followed regarding this sub- ject and a possible solution in determining what cond,it °ions to place on the developer to insure the inclusion of the bike trail Mr. O'Neel stated he should have been advised before this date than a bike trail would be required and Mr. Joslyn added that to wait until a determination had been made by the City Bikeways Committee as to where the trail would be could create a delay and very possible revision of the entire ' pla°n. Mr. McGivern advised the developer that the Planning 'Commission had the right to look at the Tentative Map to see if there were inconsisten'dies and if they felt something else was needed they had the right and obligation to incorporate it into the map. Comm. Hood advised the developer that on the E.D.P. a. linear park -. is' shown a it was not included on the Tentative Map.. Mr.. Joslyn replied that it was his understanding-that the Residential Development Eval"uation,B.oa:rd had detezmined it was not feasible to put the bike trai'1'._through this development when they h-ad conside.re.d.t:he project. He therefore asked for approval of. the•.Tentative,Map�as shown without the trail and su gges °ted uti the. land on the easterly side of the .channel which was already dedicated to the public. Comm..:` Bond reminded the applicant that he. was .sti,ll committed to the E,D.P. which required a linear -6- park., and 'could therefore accommodate a bike trail, Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, May 22, 1973' and that the .E..D...P. had been adopted long before the.deweloper had begun his plans. Mr. O'Neel finally conceded that they would put in a 10 foot ease - ment but he still felt the ,bridge would be dangerous. Comm. -Daly felt .it' was not fair to hold the developer b,ack the City Bikeways Committee determined exactly where the.bke 'trail,would be and felt the City .Council should make a determination on this matter. Mr.;McGivern told the Commission that s uch action may require the matter to come back before the Commission and further delay the project. H Comm. Bond made.the motion to add Condition, #17 as follows: "'There.-sha'll' be a width sufficient for a line park, 'a'Iong,_.:Wash'ington Creek to be determined by the. City' Councfl " a'c'cording to the advice of the Parks and Recreation Committee." Comm. Hood seconded the motion. AYES 5 NOES__ ABSENT 2 Discussion returned to the decision of the 60 -'foot lots and whether td grant*a..modification to the requirements. o.f..�,the 'Subdiv'si.on Ordinance. The staff •advised._that "the Commission had to determine if the. 6.0- foot..Iots were of` a sufficient width to provide. access -to .the rear of the lot. The applicant stated that the 15 - foot sideyard restric- tions would be'.mainta ned upon making the findings as prescribed. a.n� .thb Subdi°vis'ion Ordinance. Comm. Daly made,the motion to grant this for 60 -foot lots for the single - family units as part of the Tentative Map and Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES 5 NOES. '0 ABSENT 2 Comm. Waters-..made. `the motion to accept the Tentative Map with the 17 conditions as cited and Comm. Bond seconded. -the motion. AYES 5' NOES .:0 ABSENT 2 Comm. Daly wished make it part of the record that he had voted "Aye however, he did not wish to 'take a stand at this time on Conditions #2, #3 and #17• ADJOURNMENT: The. meeting adjourned at 11; 0 0 'P . M. r Attest : Secre to Y -7- 1�., Ft� airma