HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/16/1978REGULAR- MEETING MAY 16� 1978
CITY CO.UNCTL CHAMBERS" 7:30 P.M, .
CITY; HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
i
The Planning..Commiss •on. encourages- _appTicants;._or 'their representative to be
availaUle..,at.. the: meetings. to an'swer:..quest ons,, .'so. that' no agenda items need
be deferred to later date'due ,to a lack of pertinent information.
PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO T HE FLAG
ROLL 'CALL: Comin._,Balshaw Hoffman Lavin Shearer
Ten'cer . Waite'
STAFF: Ronald. F ,.- .Ha11, : P'l'anni ig.:Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
CORRE8PONDEN.CE1.
HOPKIN.S /STJTTON-E:_I 1, Puble to evaluate the Environmental
EVALUATION /SITE DESIGN` Impact Questionnaire for two duplexes to be
REVTEW: located at 601 Seventh Street.
2. Site 'Design Review of the project.
MELVIN LEVY- E.I.Q.
EVALUATION /SITE'DESIGN!' 1. Public' to the Environmental
REVIEW: Impact Quest%onnaire for two duplexes to be
i
located at 71.Tv G "' Street near Seventh Street.
(cont I'd °f tom = /2/78 meeting) .
2. Site. Design - R' -Vietir of ; the pro .
SOUTH!LIAND CORP .
E,. I.R-.''REVIEWt'" Publ c� H• earing° to' 6onsider� -:completeness of the
E. T,.R -.; prepared - by •Del' Davis: &- - Associates for the
proposed.- 7 -rEleven �Mdrl et to, be located at
201 South McDowell Blvd.
ADJOURNMENTi
NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED
• � � '' '? '` r BY PLANNING COMMISSION �'
�i a .I. i .Z � .i k C + t4 • .,} 1 � r � .;� s } h , . i .
1
;K
PETALUMA' PL'ANNgING 'C`OMMIS':SION' '{ ." ° i MAY 16, 1978'
1 yM1
. - jfY rC.
REGULAR: :MEETING 7 :30' P .M.
,CITY COUNCIL ,CHAMBERS, rCITY_.HALL } F a ., i r
t,l - •_' � ,1 tt� • y s �_P.ETALUMA, " CALI °FORNIk
PRESENT: Comm: Balshaw Ho Lavin -'; Sheare'r - Tencer ; Waife • .
STARF Ronald ,F �Ha11 Planning Director:, r, f ' , •�.
4
APPROVAL.iROF MINUTE S`c, The minutes; of , the �Tde,ting of., May 4,;; 1974- -
appr0\7eCl_asi sub mltted
' - r 1 - ( } J t , , t .- r „a.. 4 i i � � � g ! x , s . ; � � t � n: 1 , .} t . 7a � •, L )
CORRESP,QNDENCEc „ ,;, (1)a ,. A request, from dthejl'annirig Department - staff_ that,,,
=the Planning Commissiom� hear t. ;reques:t- • for,- approval -
of ,private,-s;tree.t for'thez , D`onahoo ,Parcel Map: The
Commission agreed unanimously_ t•o:hear th- is• after -
the present ,Agenda Items had been ;heard.,
,r,eq,uest%from iihe <P.'lann ng,st'aff, fto they Planning Commission} requesting; P .
that the':� direct the Planning Director .to forward •a letter ,to ,the::
Sonoma County D,ireci :of Community and. Environmenta ices ,; recommending.
tha thee struc- tura1.,1nt all apparerit'1y dilapidated ;structur'es :'fr'onting, .
on, P B'lud North s + n County,,�urisdiection be>,revi•ewed ,r :Mr ;;:Hallt,indicated t' that a ,mo'tion , was ,.n'dt required; from the Commission directing staff toa,prepare-•;
this letter �,, _The Commission ;therefore uerbahly di > ''the P- lanningu':D.iree;tor >
to rhave,,:Oei, staff',;,prep.are letter le,ter' fo;r : subm ssiQn; lot S'onoma 'County
of Community and Environmental, Services.;
HOP- K.INS /SU,TTON,.- E I. Q; Director Ronald4 ;the
E L, TION' /tSITE DESIGN report; fo,r�.,'tlie;.proposed, tw,o dup.:lexes ;to be •constructed.:
REVIEW ;at: 6.01 Seventh S'.treet; 'He,. outlined, the, land: use, site <,
t characteristics ^, and! 'tectural, land. -;
scape plans and parking. The; :?' bl` c Hearing •:to: consider;,,the� Envir,onmen`ta3 ;
Impact Qiestionnaire•was opened.. No- ;comments were offered. from the audience
and. fhe PublicHe'aiing!was'.closed. �,', a a, +• ,
The, ;Pla in'ing Commission dis cup sed't landscaping requixementsj,t including' i including' the t
removal of the Oak 'tree, which is '.to ,b.e, replaced' wieth -1:.one 15 gallon size fruit:
tree. Comm. Hoffman voiced h_ s feeiing's that, the City's requirements for
parkin g seem to him,, 4 to ;be +excessive ,and a burden; on flier developer _,-
x _,
, 1 , , ,• V :.� 1 t :.'� g i!. v' ,r .. :' ,. ., '- � � .. fY' ';;.
Comm Tencer moved to direct the Planning Direct - or to 'prepare and'post a Nega-
tive Declaration for the project. The mot -ion was. seconded b`y Comm. Lavin..
Ayes; Q k = Noe &� -0i
Comm. Shearer moved; to approve. the Site, Design for,+. the prr.oj ect, with
conditioris as recommended. by * �_�staf f. sand modif.ied,rby': the, . Arch -itecaural; & -. S_i:te_ .- '
Design Review ,Commi The,;mot'dp was seconded+ .by Comm Hoffman a; Ayes, 6;
Noes• 0 �: �. ,. �. � r t ;,.. ;i . rfd. S` ,
Petaluma City . ;Planning, Commission Minu;tes<, May 16:, 1978'
MELVIN I: "EVY . E 1:. ;,Planning D iecutor presented -the - ,staff report for the;
EVALUATION /SITE; two .duplexes to be located on "G" Street near Seventh,
DESIGN ,REVIEW;:. `Street He outlined" the "land use, site characters-
tics ds
architectural design. lancaping and .parking
xequir_ements..i
The` Publ c..'Hearing to,'consider the Environm_ental; Impact •Questionnai -re was
opened.:..: '
the site , with- regard to setback 'requ
The Commission discussed semen s in re-
la_tion• to,.the, ycreek „bank;, ,and ,in p'articul'ar,, to 'the adjoining •pr:opert,y.
,Re's.idents from ,tlie aadjo ning property a 507 Eighth :S.t,reet, questioned the
s ;ideya-rd set ,ack, as: ;•their p'ropertyw' rear yard ;setback is 20 feet,,.
,One of the ; proposed) ,duplex ; buildings' h -as a ;sax -foot s deyard .setba which,
indicates, that only 26� °f.eef n will. separate -the; two , -story building ; f.rom .their
T he y pct, to• -this and asked if there were an , ,wa,
home :' y j d y y the ,location of the
bui_lding be =changed. P arming Direc "tor i ekplained the setback require-
men•ts �prohihit' ,changing 'the 1'ocat on �of' the building,,
'The Piiblac Hearing .:was ;c'losed::: , •'
_
CommShearer . _moved to .direct the ,Plane ng : Director t_o ; prje,pare ; and ,posy :a
Nega .,Dec- la:rat:ion. ; for the ect. :The motion wasi - seconded by Comm. , Lavin.
Ayes., . 6 ; :Noes.... ;0 �-
Comm ;Shearer ; indi:caa-V d`•ithat, :the Site�'D,esign "Committee was concerned
r fabouX .Propgrly tComm e ,
tp thi ck lshawt. ues
g q
".as
whe:.the
I r.,this .,cou•ld pose: ,;a hazard' : i'f.- „the�'fixed•��wind'ow w.e•ie t(o be used an
' es:cape,'reLte:'. Com!n S1,earer• ndicatedc lthat..the :o paque glass window is only one
,of thre,e.wi.nd�o.,s din the _room;' _1e - .or;e •no :haza•r`d would ,exist °.
The Commission also discussed the 30 loot. setback requirements, from ,the • creek
bank. Mr -.,Ron Hardy., •representing ' ,Mt*..',Levy, explained' that the Sonoma County
.Watet:Agency requires a;-- foot ".setback; a' measure f'o•r assuring- the aesthetic
appearance. ,o'f• the. creek- ;.•,howevei;, if '.d'oc'ument:aton can be prodded which
indicates',.that, .the -bank - -wou.ld; be ,safe. mif-W. a: 20 =foot; setback, the Commission
and the -City .Council can ac't • -to- approve. the ;setb'adk,.
:.
Comm. ;Shea "ref .moved ;to :.approve th;e S,tt . Design f'or the proposed duplexes , with
the conditions -as recommend `
ed by t_he st;af -f, and, concurred with by the Archi-
tectural,- Site Design -Review =. Comm -ittee with "th`e• f of lowing : - han`ge.: The motion
was second; ed by' •Comm.: ' `Balshaw,. ": 'Ayes! .:6'; Noes',
1 All buuild rigs' shall .tie se.t}:b''ack`a. m nimum''of`• twenty. (:20)' feet subject to
approval. of. Sonoma Gount Water from the to _
Y Ag .. P of the creek `bank,.
.�
SOU.THLAND CORP. - The Planning Director read a,letter from, Herold Mahoney,
K. I.R. REVIEW'; in opposition. to the project because of; 'increased.
trafftcc.. Mr s'tat'ed that' •,th 's,' letter would be
valid on?ly insofar as • ,t addresses the 'focused, ,E +. -I� R 'However, he felt that
the ,letter -should' b_e,introduced 6edaiis'e lt'does voice the concern.,fel,t because
of the :traffic s 't.uataon at the intersection of Washing't`on and McDowell. Mr'.
Pret'aluma City Plahhingt Commission Minutes, May 16, 1978'
-�
Hall. mentioned that a pgtb t on,fhad j beepri ece ved".bearing th'es names ofLapp.r -ox` mately
2 300 p'eE plc opposing the proposed 7 Eleven because of the additional traffic
Th will n Pa i 4 97 E. a +:
ey „ u 4fon, is � not�r, val .d” because at did not . addre °ss the ,I.R However, it<
�,be' valid in the�,Use Permit he Ta• _ •�
•' ib {¢e { � A_yb
The.,Plan�ning p rector reviewed,the.;staf`ftreport >i.bIn�.th'e - focused "VII. R: "emph - 9 s
is, given the potentia >i for ,sign- ificantr:r~imp:acts, xto ° '; th'e�+tr'affc:�vsu`al -acl
pub safety c nity 7 of:the pr. odect�ssite_:: = . T•he•s- report was�S S'
pr.epared 1�Days andx of +San;R'afael,,- }Cali §fo•rnia.a••• -����
The futures•
commercial, leased rySlte r a:i \ 3 �'tiS? 91 f 5a 3 :Ja4 nJ $ `.2rfrt x;py
it
C
Jc .. fivy '.. , ..6. a rte °�' a �k'fs vs1u nvy �.U,
Mrw Hall outl ned fihe,�E rI R Ip relation -� toi,the f nd ngs regard ng f Yncreased �
t.raffic,.: e ,; veh clek,trips; per• dayyot'raffic stacking at• the int'6rsectlon ` =ands
p`' rob'.I em �h.,of y ingre,s'slegress { rout e s
„s. J.C;a c klfi.�P ;�wsa� �.:ti�3r2`7Ch..
There was also the though t t that; they project would contrasthi, sually ?w th the-
ad�:o'ning.,Washington
Square:-Shopping, ;Center. '
, V2 r , v E'a Z C S A r,,� f. -� v. r s ,Y. R �� cg J �' a r F J i a -a`, M1, ?..� ` 1'Yf's.{ - c3'�, f;�.,9 . ) r 4 .." - r .,. •' " r ..
The, Commission- ,ques;t o.ned Mr,: 'Tom- H'argis.,XAs:sistant :GityIErig nee'rp= iregard ngna'r
the,traffac g,resented•;n +the `focused E tI�R'; :'.and' asked " -'him t'o �£
exp:l5airi' the various; method, � used,'.to determ 'ne Ethel >stati�stics ;; � Mr �•�Hargis rs' P'
explained the, procedure for determ ningN th hour f IoW is the time ; day
that' the "count's are 'taken, the methods of graphing statistics to show speak
hours and'nnumbers,, :and theafaet that�.we'ekend traff c'�patter - -ns differ "f;rom' ?t >`
weekday commute pattetns,:
Cha rmAfi ��Wait'e •opened ` -the 'Public Hearing, to consider th'e adeguacy 'of _the
focused'E I—I R; Mr Victor `DeCarl 'indicated support of the fetter from' Mr
Jerold i�ia'nuney. he mentioned' he had not. reviewed 'the E.I.P.'., but waited to
4 .,
..,
voice his cone'ern over the traffics `mp'act of 'the 'proposed '7 -gleve Chairman
'Wa;ite advised Mr: 'DeC,arl to' -review the E I.`R <t fief -.ore it 'is presented -to the
City Council' for •ap:prova -1
Comm. Wate: questioned if the Junior High' School In, the, area was taken into.
consideration when the stati:s,tics<' for 'pedes:trian "'tiaf'fic were computed. ' A
represenf'at ve from Del `Dam`s °:and;' Associates stated tha ' she did' not believe
that the Junior High Scho`61 I tself, cods tiered: The Public 'Hearing was
Several members of -the Commission again questioned Mr Hargis and 'the repre-
n ta i t l e, 'of Del Davis Associates. ,; regardinggther
� taffic statistics preseri<te
in'Mr.-
�cused •I:R Hargis sated diff;erent< metfiods .and formulas fo1-
Lowed ink computing traff -ic .f =low 8t He indicated that Pet- a�luma uses
th'e same K
fformulas as other agencies. -; therefo,re,, we can consider' the "traff`c
counts-arid computations uniform.
Chaff -rman Waite = commented that this was the most complete E,. he had ever
3 reviewed.: His `•sta.tement was su PP;_. o;rted by other. members: of the 'Commission.
Comm Lavin moved to recommend approval of the adequacy; of the E..I.R. for the
Shearer , ven Market. to City Council. The motion was seconded by Comm.
Ii, Ayes., 6;• Noes 0. .
Petaluma City`;Planning'Gomm ssion Minutes,, May 1,6, '1.9`78'
DONAH00 RRIUATE Yr Mr Hargis ;sta
g t'ed that the: Engineering Department has
~� }
"been - reviewing':the plans for_ `a•' private. street °. to serve'
" a •four- -lot, subdivision �loc'ated 'at 9.23 "I" Street. for
some +time. There was .a question.regardng, the drainage requirements:. Accord'`-
ing to. the .staff engineer„ the •p ,as•,'amended -.on. May '16, 1 dy• ,were rea - for'
Engineering eDepartment.:approval,. Mi Harz s approval' for the
Eng- neer - ng..Deparament -on the::cond tion`;;the" drainage tequiremerits� had •be'en met';.
Severai: members• of._ the ,Commission questioned ='the .map presented t . There
was a quest' on as to how. th'e •=private, ,st - reet will effect the traffic .,flow and if,
'
there would be, ,an. im act :on n n I Street There -was also a question regardi-ng�
p.
•
whether, or notr, some time in the future; the. g
ro e'rty could be split .again., It'
was .explained. that if; the owner' or .= future .owner 'had a; desire, to develop: the
property .more.•. fully; ,- he. would .:have .to .,present th'e' project `to� - the Planning
Department and It •wou'ld' have ao be reviewed as to''whe the r or not 'the private -
' street: will be suff c -fent.
Comm: Shearer .moved to .recommend approval of the private street :to the City
Council- with the •condition that 'the pr, vale ;street .improvements;: -are approved, by
the Engineering. ;Department,, and :.the drainage .requirements have, been ,met . The
motion was .seconded , by , , ;C'ommissioner Baliff6w., . Ayes 6�; 'Noes 0.
ADJOURNMENT :, There .being no furither business:, the.- meet'ing.�was'
adjourned ,,'a:t Jz &: p m
Chairman
•: Attests: - -�' °`� .� _ s�..._.Cp •:..