HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/02/1978REGULAR.MEETING MAY Z, 197$
,,..: CITY , COUNCIL. CHAMBERS; 7 ::30 "P <;M;
CITY HALL PETALUMA ..CALIFORNIA
The Planning Commission encourages. applicants . - thdii rep resentative
ava "ilabl'e...a't: _the '.meet ngs, to answer, - questions, ;so. tbat «no .agenda items need
be deferred to• a later date - 'due to , a - lack_`of - pertinent information.
P•LEDGE,�ALLEGIAN-CE.. TO ••:THE ,.FLAG,
.:ROLL. CARL: Comma AdIshaw .:, Hoffman - Horciza ` - Lavin
Shearer -�- Tencer Waite
STAFF: Rona;l'd F .H`a11; Planning Director
..........
APPROVAL, OF MINUTEST:.
CORRESPCJNI3EN CE.:.,.
CALENDAR:
Items.. CONSENT, CA
-
- • ,:..
�~ I.tems. a
" ppear•nga one: :,the:�.Consent_- Calend •be they- -
Planning._ Commission sand w�.11 - enacted by one• - M'o ti
'tion,; °° .There will e no separate• ..
.dis:cussian of. •these .items.....,...If. discussion .>is`,d - es ir ed.;.,,;,tba.t ,item`s;(or items) will
be:xemoved- from- the-Consent.:Calend'ar,...., ...
BEHRENS? ` NELSON :MACKEY',.:. ,.
E:, >I,,._Q,. Evaluation and ~Site: Design Review of a
proposed "office--:conV,er "sation be located at
30 Fifth- Street. -. .
MELVIN ",LEVY,.,.. "
E..I...Q..;- Evaluation and, =rS te_ti;Design Review of
--Wo :duplexes - proposed :to b' located at 717.7.19
G' Street ;near" 'Seventh Street.
ALV:IE E,. 'E•VERHART: -E::3. Q.
1. Public-11 -ear ng r >t:o- ;evaluate tfie.. Environmental... _
EVALUATION• /REZONING FROM - ;
Impact. Questionnaire._ -& - proposed "rezonin& -.
R -1'-• 20,000 TO `R '1 -10 000
of, the property located • at- 161: Grant .Avenue.
DISTRICT ": '..
2. Public. Hearing_ t'& consider' an• to
r`ezone!: het above. property - >f rom "R-l 20 to
R- 1- 10,000.
ST EPHENIPHILLIPS =E_I Q
1. Public Hearing to evaluate:- the.Environmental
EUALUAT +TON /USE PERMIT
Impact Questionna -re for•.. a :.pro.posed automotive_.-
REQUESV:
repair shop to be" at -1309 Scott. St.
2. Public Hearing to request for .a
Use Permit for the proposed.pro,ject.
t- u
PETALU'k- PLANNING COMMISSION f -
.
AGENDA �r4 z
x,
a a 4 t t . _ t,
MAY3 i2,1 °g78 r
, s
AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORilINANGE Public Hearing:to consider an amendment to
1072 N..,C S� :DEDICATION` OF 'Section
. r a j 26 405,,5 oE.,the Zoning: Ordinance to --
S;TREET'RIGHT OF- WAY:.
`' J .
Eprovde for dedication oa. necessary street
v
3e. ri way; as a condition of development
approval ` wiyth certain:, except'ons_'.
r
HISTORIC LANDMARK'
--
DES- IGNATION: REQUESTS:
1 -. ':Public -He- _acing; to consider:: a 3h "stor -c= land-
mark des.ign'ation for ttfie 'Great Petaluma -Mill
located at '6- 8 B North.
2.. Publ-ic Hearing' 'to .•consider a h iitbr- t,,' and-
mark designation for `the•.NcNe'ar Building
` located at 15 =25 Petaluma .Blvd. Nor "tfi:
3.. Pub:l c..:Hear ng:,to consider a :histd-.'I 'laiad;-
mark for•,the .Old. P:os't Office .Building =lbca - - ed
at 10 -2 'P'e:taliima Blvd-. 'North.. .
ROBERT IHUNT7APPEAL
AppdaA of ,a recommendation by ;the Planning
OF COUNTY REFERRAL
Director :on a Sonoma County refer =rat to deny
RECOMMENDATION:
a lot, split 'proposed. for :1548•Mouri� `View
(,cone inu'ed'')
Avenue,.
ADJOURNMENT`:
NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED
BY: THE :PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES.
PETALUMA CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION MAY 2 '1 `
REGULAR 'MEETING
7 :30 P, M..
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS:
: PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
'PRESENT:: Comm. Aoffman Horciza,, Lavin,., , Shearer *.j Tencer., Waite
*Arrived- at 7:'35- P.M.
ABSENT :` ;Comm,: Balshaw
'STAFF:1 Ronald F. .Hall
Planning, Direc.tak,.
APPROVAL 'OF MINUTES:
`The minutes of the_ :meeting, of April 18' 19:78, were.
approved as eorrec.ied.,.
CORRESP '_ , -
A r:equesif` 'by. Matt Hudson, Attorney;, represent - ing Robert
Hunt, 354,8 Mountain View Avenue, 'to continue this item
r.
.
f'or '30 zd4ys .
CONSENT +CALENDAR
It 'was the consensus tlzai the Levy appi'i'cat,on
be, 'removed from the; Consent. Calendar.
'Horciza,
The motion was made by Comm: seconded by- Comm.
`Shea'rer" to approve :Item ;1 on the C'o..seht: Calendar.
Motion carried unanimously,;-
Agenda' Item 1
,Behrens, 'Nelson, 'Mackey ; , Negativ&'Declaration -- and Site
"
Design Res:, '5.5.33 approving 'an 'of,fice ,conversion at 30
?
Fifah Street.; . Comm. Hoffman indicated that -the appli-
cant would replace the existing wall with a picket-
fence.
ALV.IE E.: EVERHART -'
Mr". Hall. exp,I`ained the request of Alvie Everhart to -
,-
E. "I.Q, EVALUATION/
rezone ;approximat'ely` .58 acres from R =17- 20,000. t6.. -1:
REZONING FROM' •
101 located, at 16l. Gr -ant Avenue., between "I" 'S'treet
R -1 =20 , 000 TO'
and Ke'l ly, , Lane. The new l'ot s Would be between 12,000
R- 1=1:0;;0,00 DISTRICT':.:
and` 13-000 square feet. A le'tter''was read dated April
28;, 197$„ from`Al'f;red A1y,s, 16''5 'Grant Avenue, favoring
the rezoning.
,The ..Pub,11c,Searing't;o
consider the. Impact Questionnaire was
oPened. No comments were offered' from the ,aud`ience and the Publ -lc, Hearing Was
'.Closed.
Comm. Lavin moved, to direct,
the, Planning D ;rect:or. "t,o prepare and post a• N'' ga
five :D'eclaration . for • the.
The motion was -.seconded. by :Comm.: Horciza.:
Tle motion carried with 6 affirmative votes and ,1 absent.
Tle Public 'Hearing was
opened to, consider the, proposed R- 1710,.000 . rezoning. No
comment's were _offered
-from t'he .audience. and the Public Hearing- was: closed,.
197`8
Petaluma..Ct;y P,1_anning, Commission Minutes. - May 2,J
Comm. Horciz'a moved to recommend: approval. of the requested R ,1 -:10 0,00 r.ezoriing;
to the, Cit Council The 'motion. 'was seconded..b Comm Hoffman: The motion
carried with 6 a votes and' 1 absent.
•'
Comm ,as:ked if copies of the staff' report could be made, available Vr
,'Roffman
public: "us'e 'so 'the' rep'.ort :would not °haUe to be 'read ' `Horciz'a si ^ated'� the
- _.,
' had ,tr=ied to' refr-aifn from'the- 'reading; of "'the r:eports., but it did not.-
: C'oinmi"ssion
Re p were made ava l'abTe to the publio but-
n"ehadvbeen
c es�
-d
theereadine d mm
g onsi erably'.shortened`'> Co Waite ex-
plained this method had, `been tried, b}t `the audience ;in turn would' ask que`s=
.bons about 'the app,lcations Comm> Shearer stated slevw.ould like to have a'
tr al..basis where copies. would` b;e ma'de avalabl' -.e., rir, 'Hall :exp ained. the
- - volume . of, running ,more. eop:e5 isi 'expensiv.e :and '1'iis budget "is 1_mited .;
STEPHEN PHILLIPS Mr. Hall explained `the..reques.t of +Step'hen 'P;hlllips for
,.
' E.1 Q. 'EVALUATION,/ a ;general autoffikl e repair ; shop; to be l,o.cated° at .1309
US - RE_RMIT''gEQUST: Scott Street.` The :si.,t'e -now Houses a 16',41'0_.square foot
indus,tr' al 'building which, accommodates other industrial-
oriented "buildings :, The �Ridustr al building, is `l.ocated
centrally on this' proper-•ty. '
The Public, R ing was opened to consider the Enuixonmental Imp "act Question.-
ria re, No ".comments: were "of,fered fr:o'i�, -the audience and the'Public Hearing: was.
,.. , closed = . , • •• ,, . :..-
-
C'omin. Horc za moved ; to direct the Planning.'Dir;ector to',p.re;pare and; post a N'ega=
t, ve- Rec•laratzon. for ;the :p The motion was se_c'onded. by Comm;., 'Lavin_. The
root -ion. icarried :with 6 affirma,t ive and I . - absentee• vo,t;e.
The Public Heading, was opened to consider the Use Permit., No comment's were,
offered, from the ,:aud'ience: and the Piibiic Hearing , ,, was closed,.
._ ,.
, .Comm. Horciza moved, to 'grant" the Use Permit,, to allow for a :General. ,Automotive
ke P P air Sho The motion wa was seconded -by 'Comm.. The' motion carried. with
,
6.,affi.rmative votes and 1 absent. `} Lavin:
AMENDMENT- TO ZONING Mr. Hall ,explained. cons ideration was to be•given•..to.a
` ORD. 4 �NCS ' , ,' ` Zoning 0'r -d nance Amendment to provide ;for• dedicat; =ion.• of
DERICAT STREET,`` ., street right 'o,f -wa and- const'ruct-ion of piub;l c impr
RIGHT' -:OF WAY.:. : meets °as.aa coed "t on of development "approval..' Pre -:
'.: yiously<; concrern la'ad been exp- ressed 'oy,:er .fhe .far:ness
of ,e 'pr _s ions: to the .propert : y owner, , including, a� °reas'onabJ!'&. established
value, of mp:r.ovemerits :before the, provisions of "t'he ordinance would be mp'le=
mented.. The revised ordinance exempts construct -ion .:valued; at •$10,,0.0.0 or les's
' from the provisions of the ordinance and provides -b raising the value " of
construction, by resolution 'to compensate'. for 'inflati'on•,and . increased building.
costs: The . ordinance: ,also;. exemp;;ts projects .that are >clear - -1_y accessory to other
uses on the property,,; projects involving rehabilitation of exis=ting _structures,
a
where no change of use: wiL occtii -r, .and prof e'ets. where= a developer, can establish
_
the re'quir_ea dedication would render the•proper substantial Yy valueless for:
any ,pr -va'te 'use upon determination 'by " Ci "ty° Council
,V
t .
P"egaluma, City Planning Commission 'Minutes, ' May 2„ '1978
.' Mr. 'Hal`1 explained- that ?given the amount of` exce P lions this ordinance would, ,
;• apply' to new' single - family dwellings "wli'ere consfr%ction is valued,'over $10,0
The, -City .does'" have certain streets; that need. improvement 'and' dedication, 'but
most of `the h lo ev ;ts are- presently eyeloped In some_ cases, 'where there• are, empty
lots td .be.- deloped, there, would be s,trget' 'dedication if the= street is" not
.. .. fi .,.. ..,_' 1.
N. improved'. This ordinance would apply 'more to commercial `than residential
properties.. Before this ordinance, was considered; d'ed>catiori was -. not required,
and in such case, the property owner, - actually , developed `the street and .
the; stree t:' .'He then paid 'taxes ° on the st:r&e „t
Comm, Hor asked' if this: would be one _of "t-he items the �Gity -Council would .
ad '.ust automaticall_ each ea? to meet the inflation , or would a, special reso=
lut on be re wired: to do this« Mr”
J Y Y
Y '�' q. ' ,o Hill explained an`.. adJ ustinent- would" riot have
to be made 'each y,e'ar` If th'e `Council d'es ;res .they = `could ad"`ust `each "'year,
based on th'e inflationary trend Gomm ,Horcza staged'" the,-$116. ,000 value is; a
lot more realistic than•-the' <.p:reviousl'y '.proposed. $'2,000 :figure.. Comm, Hoffman
asked i pro,p:erties: were ded_- icat:ed would the 'taxes be reduced'? • Comm =. '
W'an'e explained if the properties' °were :riot picked "_up - "by- "the. Assessor -these
L
owners.could , to `the Assessor asking fora devaluation on 'the" dedicated 8
or - 10 .feet °of :their land Th`e ordinance would ;apply to older, narrower 'streets 1- 41
where there .are va °cant lots "and Cherry; ,S,tr:ee't is an
'ex_ample.` Tom Hargi ,
Assistant City Eng veer, said another example would 'be the-i bbile 'home parks; on
Yr
North.'M'dMow,el1,,., 7wheie very .large I parcels of -property were not. split. The
=owners were rq :e uifed to put- in the publ - "c improvements,; but :not hecessarily
required, to dedicate" the "stree-t,. These are large pieces of property wh., the
owner retained. owne "iship' _where he is paying .taxes. on land that people are
walk "ing:'and'driving bfi,.' Comm Horciza said 'there.. are some areas within the
' •
City where the street_im rovements- took:.plac6 Mr:. - started liability would
be, greater prior to - th'e,'prop,osed ordinance, ,but. with:'the new ordinance it would
be a public street. Comm rlqrc lza s vatted 'it, codid be. ,a; messy situation for
people to be liable for ' :s6metliing that happens in the street .Comm. Lavin
stated .cif people. wanted' to dedicate 'their land,' 'under this - 'ordinance, they
could do so. Comm. Waite stated when ,ai dedication is" .tri.ggered' = ; -•it could
necessitate a, situation where" the owner has ,to hire a. ;surveyor and have a `legal
- description : in, order to ,give property - the" City'.' Mr.: Hargis explained that
geeralLy a surveyor is :retained .'in connections with the' street" improvements. and
thus the., add'i"tilona'1 ° cost .amounts" to very little:
Comm., Lavin referred to 'the proposed fu :tur-e- overpa'sa at Rainier' ,Avenue where .
the .C" qty ;plans, to constru"t an 82=foot ';roadway H'e `'asked if when a "p of line:
has been. drawn, 'on Rainier .Avenue; would ,.the .plot ;1ine be considered' to' ex 'st,' "' :
f`or example on the.'Mosqui.to. Abatement ;pro.p.er:ty,, or, would it be established 'at a""
future dates Mr Hargis explained that usually 'the Engineer, Department de-
termines. atypical ;future right _of- way.,, based on= the size. of st -reel °to be
There .
const ructed: a'r.e ;standards -•for 'the different types of streets,, minor,
collec,to.r. and`' art'erial.,s.tree`ts for..which there .are,.correspondin'g rights -of' -way".
Comm. Lavin asked if' a ;plot line �ex-i.sted on :that .property sp that, when the
Mos :quit :o Abatement_'peopl.e.decided :to build .they. would be.- requrred',t'o : dedicate.
that .p:ro,per-ty. , Mr., Hargis, stated, the City has. f :ormul°_at'ed: w'h'a - ��Ihey feel. is' an
approprra;te right -of -way. for ;Rainier Avenue, and lthe City is worki oft a :t-rade
with the Mos,q,ui`to Abatement, D,isf r.ict, since the or.dinadce, i' � not in effect :. The ,
City is in a "p'osition of t
not beings able o require dedication., If thi ord "i
nance had been h 'effect' it would apply , t "this property., Comm. Lavin asked if
•" ' there- was . Aocumentati_ on 'that .the. Mosquito .AbAtement property, is subiect
t -o, - dedication in the future? He -wa s concerned that there, should, be -- some" clarity
-3-
P
1 1 ,
P_e:taluma City Planning, Commission, ,Minutes, .May Z, 1.978
and 'documentation as ',to what constitutes a, plot, .line or ,plan Tine that neces-
si,tates dedicati6hn. As in.the case.of the;.mosquito, Abatement, fie City plans
are considered informal; .as..they have not been 'approved. He- considered it an
11-f eV situation when based' „upon an unofficial. plan line Someone coul'd, b'e
forced to dedicate which could be•pushing dedication to its furthest limi;ts,-
Mr Hargis stated the,:ar- terial. and collector street patterns are.. prot'ty well
es'tabl' shed ;f6k the City, except in the undeveloped areas; wHero. a, subdivision,
takes place, and these are ,estab,Iished .as- they, tgo;- through -the planning process
Qomm,. Lavin stated there should' he some clarity -on 'whether .ve area talking-,about
of `f icla1. or .unoff• ci6I plan lines;:. _ Comm Waite .added thatl improvements could
still :be. required at a._.cert-ain p° ace - 'on, a str.ee't regardless of whether. this
ordinance is. ,adopted..or not;, In other words, we are talking about physical
pubaic, improvements ituuat -ed` in ;a locition °where .the,y 'arer actually on private
pr-;operty and, no •longer `usab,le by that Pierson bi d`er today'! s ord=inance, ' a
person, could. still, be • 'required to, put; .in speci'f ied public :imp.rovements in a
place. -as:, di- r;ected';, °by the' City Bng n&er "s Off: ce;
'The Public Hearing wa,s opened t:o;. consid_er an amendment to; the 'Zoning Ordinance
No:.comment -s •were- offered from he
t audience's and the Public 'Hear w
in as •clos;ede
Comm . i0.ciz,a. mooed fo- recommend app of -an amendment to. rSe'ction '26-405_5
of 'the,Z'onn g'-
6rdnance:. to: tlie', City , Counci and that 'the concerns of Comm.
havin b'o' present -ed to,tlae' Ciyty Council ;by the PT`anni "ng Director The motion
was setonded',-,;b Comm .:rShea -er . T.he'•motion carried wi -,th. 6 aff rma,tive.:votes..and
I absent
HISTORIC; LANDMARK Mro Hall explained;; the ,P'etaluiYLa 'Historic & Cultural
`DESIGNAT,ION - REQUESTS i4 PFteserv.at -ion Commission r,e uested' the Ci.t:. of Petaluma,
t,o d'esignate,. three buildings 3as hi- stori.e` la-nrlmarks On
the ho'cal. aevel„ this designation provides the City -the opporluni,ty. to, have
control : on w,haf.l happens, to the ex;t'erior of, these build ng "s o 'IF a b is.
designated-as' an historic landmark,, 'this, designation, ; goes 'with the ,b:uild'ing, and
not with' the, owner of. the• property',
GREAT 4ETALUMA MILL• The Public Rearing was opened - to `consider the desi-gna-
ti of the Great• Petaluma Mill as a, Historic, Landmark
site.
Skip Sommers of. Sommer & Ryan ;Ent.erpr s';e's', `stayed the Farrell", Home .is - the iori1y
building in Retaluma listed ;on, the national reg s,try Buildings listed on this
registry receive °an.;excellent ,tax break. Mr. Sommers gave -a brief';background_.
of the - -"etal Mull., The Public ._Hearing was closed
Comm;, Horciza _.expl that in' order- to. designate vario.us� 'in :a; commer-
c al zone, these: designations have—to-be accomplished one- by' orfe, or building
by building,,' rather than ..by. havifng - an!.'hist.or,ical.• dis:t.riet- Thin means' that .any
alterations, or changes in the appearance of .a build "in'g has to' be TaRpiroved,
,;..„ down t;o the •painting, b.ef,o.re, the` ;pr.operty owners. can -, go ahead. and do: -the ,work
;, ••
which is a t.rue''p;r;eservation . of these old :buildings The City designated the
old. Co.ca� -Cola sign at the corner. -of Wos.tern;4venue and Keri_tucky , ;Street as ~a
City historic: landmark Comm:. -Lavin s;t `in P,et°aluma a building canno;f
be designated as-an historical .landmark without.,_the ow consent, but :in
o "ther c -hies areas can .be .designated .and this ,;is: the manner in which It is'
accompl _.. as zoning,dis.trictsa. P.e,taluma designate, an ar,ea,; it .has,
'tq:.be down .on a building to 'building - basis
-4.-
Petaluma, City `P. lanning, Comm ssion'.Minu,t May 2 1.9.7'8
Comm: Horciza. moved, �m.xecommend_ to the. City Council 'tha 'the Great Petaluma
Mill be desgnat <an historic landmark site:;. The motion was seconded by
:Comm.' Lavine The mot ion carried. with-_6 affirmative and 1 absentee Vote,
RaEAR.,BUILD;ING The, Public Hearing was _opened to consider the. des.ig-
_ _
nation of the McNear Building as an Historic Landmark
site..
Jeff Harriman, Histor'ical:Restoration arid. .Deveiopment Gommittee,, explained that
even though ;..th'e �MeNear. Buildings were built at different times, the buildings
are- connected on.;(he second. floox.and, cons.ider.ed as.,one parcel. Because of the
.unique arc
h elemen <ts, of _ ,brick .:and' .iron. front along with' the building's
historical importance to: ,the "City, he requested the building be designated an
-h, stor- cal landmark,. Robert. Weiss, 235 Liberty Street, favored historical
designation, stating the, .city would have control on .the. exterior of the build -
ng so that the historical s;ignif,can,e would not be altered. Comm. Waite
explained ,a designation would, not effect the interior only the.. exterior ,of a
building. Mr. Sommers stated that all the 'build' ngs.have developed by
private developers and not.publ.ic funds'.- ,A lady from -the audience explained
the interior can be, changed to keep the building alive as long as the exterior
remains' the ,same and s'o that the bu- ild'ing will not be-demolished. The Public
Hearing was closed._
Comm ,Hoffman moved to recommend to the City Council that the McNear Building
be designated as ;a, historic, landmark site. The ,motion was seconded by Comm.
'Horciza. _ The motion' carried with 6 .affirmative' votes' and 1 absent..
The- Public
ST OFFICE BLDG, Hearing was opened to consider the designa-
OLD PO ,.,• ,.. y
tion,of the Old Post Office as an.Historic Landmark
site, N
: o.commen:ts were. of "fered from the public and the Public Hearing was
osed. Comm. Horciza explained this building. is '60—years old. I:t was included
in this group, even ' though, there are .o der buildings "in Petahima, because of
its ,example.as a bxack Commerc'i_ar Building and it was:'built'by Brainerd Jones,
architect, '
Gomm., Hoffman ,moved .t o. recommend to the.'C -i'ty .'Co•unc> l that the Old Post Office
he. designated _,as..an..his.to•ric..landmar -k site. The- motion was se'cond'ed by Commo
Horciz;a,, The motion, carried by 6' affi'r - t V - 't 's and l absent.
Comm to recommend to the Historical '& Cultur:al Preservation Com-
mittee. selec'i,.,that,, an Appropriate plaque be selected and "awa -rded these his-
,. ,. ,.
torical landmarks,, and, that the plaque be mounted on th:e outside of these
'biildings. Th•e- ;motion was seconded by Comm. Horc za.. The motion carried with
6 affirmative votes and l absent.
ROBERT!HUNT.APPEAL Continued ,fo,r a 30 -day `period.
OF COUNTY REFERRAL
RECOMMENDATION:
(Continued)