Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/04/1976A G E N D A PETALUMA.CITY .PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 1976 r REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P-M. CITY•COUNCIL CHAMBERS, GITY.HALL.. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA The. Plan-ning. Commissl:Yi•c. ants or..their representatives to 'be ' ,.on,,encourage&dppavailable. at, the ;meetings. ao, answer questions, so that no Agenda items need - be..deferred to .a later- date.- due to a .lack of pertinent information. PLEDGE' ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL GALL': Comm. Bond Head Hlligoss Horciza Popp' Waters- Wright. STAFF: Frank B. Gray, Act-ing Planning'Director APPROVAL.OF MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE 'i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. Environmental impact assessment _for the, proposed ASSESSMENT:- WASHINGTON- Washington Creek and Lynch Creek Channel Improve - CREEK & 1YNCH CREEK. menu between 'U.: S .; Highway �-101 and' -the -outlet of CHANNEL`IMPROVEMENTSt. both°waterways with the:. Petaluma River.. E.D.P: TASK 'FORCE ,COMMITTEE Sfa.tus..report',to, the Planning .Commiss.ion by the STATUS REPORT: :Chairman, of, they E.D.P.•.Task Force, Committee. DOOLITTLE PAINT MART 1.. E,.I.Q. evaluation for the proposed wholesale E.I..Q,. EVALUATION/.VARIANCE -,paint outlet and -small rental area to. be located V.5-76/SITE DESIGN IEVIEW.:. at 451 Lakeville -Highway., 2., Variance.consideration for the project to allow d i h i d df 25ft DE SCHMIRE RESTAURANT'-- E.J J.Q. EVALUATION/USE PERMIT'U6-76/SITE DESIGN REVIEW: LAFRANCHI,,. BETTINELLI,:`& MICHELSEN,- E..I.,Q.. EVALUATION/REZONING Z3 76•.i a..re uction n t e requ re rear par rom. to,,'12 ft. 3. Site, design Freview considerationa -for .the -pro- posed wholesale .paint , outlet,'. and rental area .,. -1.. Public- Hearing- `to evaluate. the! 'E .I .Q, and consider a Use Permit to allow the sale of alcohol in<.a proposed restaurant to be located at 304 Bod'ega Avenue:,; submitted . by Guy Scohy � ,and Carol Stastny., 2. 3i'te design review considerations for the proposed, restaurant andparking area. Public Hearing to evaluate the ,E.I.Q,. and the proposed -rezoning of property located at 205 Keller Street from an ,R ;M-GI District., to,'a. C-0 District to ,construct a professional -office building .Petaltffid`City Planriing, Commission Agenda,, ;Play 4•,. •1976 ,S & M. CONSTRUCTION `- E:I,.�Q, L. Public Hearing to ''evaluate' 'the".E'•.;I ;.Q:_. 'and -'consider EVAT,UATION/REZONING Z4-76/, the rezoning- application submitted by S & M SITE DESIGN REVIEW/ Construction'to'rezofi6.p'roperty­located-at- TENTATIVE,MAP: z u 303 Grant Avenue•from R-1=6•„50U and..Planned:Unit Districts 't'o 'a Planiied -Unit District. 2.. Site design review for the proposed, Planned Unit 'Disa'rict• .deve.lopment..', _. t, 3: Consideration of the Tentative Map submitted for the `11-1o•t- subd-ivision.. 1` ADJOURNMENT _ • -l' -r. ,tr � 1. u:.h V .'3, �. i. .r cr o ` f F r ., - ' • M I N U T E S •P.ETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION'' REGULAR MEETING ' CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS; CITY'HALL = PRESENT: Comm: - Bond; Head, Hilligoss, 'Hor,c•iza,. Popp, ABSENT: ' ,Comm. Wright Waters MAY 4, 1976 7:30 P.M. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA STAFF: Frank'B. Gray, Acting Planning Director Fred E. Tarr, Associate�Planner Leo P. Rachal, Associate Planner APPROVAL-OF.MINUTES:: The minutes -of April 20, 1976, were approved with the correction of -a .,typographical error on -page 4, line 28, "without." CORRESPONDENCE: Mr. Gray informed the Commis'sioiier-s -that copies of the summer schedule of courses' for the University;of California Extension in - Berkeley were available for' those who -were interested. ENVIRONMENTAL ,IMPACT Mr. Carl Jackson of the Sonoma County Water Agency addressed the- ASSES'SMENT - -Commission-arid-briefly exp'lained,.,the proposed project for im WASHINGTON CREEK '& provement of --.Washington an'd --Lynch -Creeks f or the west side`' --of town LYNCH CREEK, -CHANNEL up to-the•:f'reeway. He advis'ed.that•there were no large structures IMPROVEMENTS: to replace and the.improvements'would conform to the existing box culvert-under'Madison•Street with some modifications: Mr. Jackson also advised that landsc'aping- plans would be furnished at a later date and would:be coordinated:with,the'City. Mr. Gray asked Mr. Jackson to explain the drop structures where the outlet comes in against the old, .'Linda Del Mar 'Subdivision.. Mr:'Jackson replied that the Water Agency was aware of past: -prob- lems with°these property owners'_in trying to -maintain the banks. He advised that the-intent.at' thistime was to •try to realign the channels to.bring them in•a't' a•tangential arrangement with the Petaluma River rather than perpendicular to try to mitigate the -thrust of ithe water -so the direct force of both streams would not be flowing -against those banks. In reviewing the minor concerns stated.in the staff report, Leo Rachal,-Associate Planner, -,stated -that -one concern was the ques- tion-of-whoowould-be respons.ible.for•improving low areas where there was -no excess spoil materials and low.spets•existed. He advised that a conversation with.the City Engineer indicated that the Sonoma County Water Agency and the City would have -to make a joint effort to make sure -that such residential back lots were -riot completely lost, -even -after channel -improvements -had been com- pleted. Comm. Popp stated he�was•,familiar with`the past problems of the Linda' Del Mar residents -and felt there should be some stipulation in,City or County ordinances.to•take care of these properties. Mr. Gray questioned how.the low spots would be filled to insure Petaluma City -Y Planning Commission,, Minutes,, M�L 4, 1976 drainage towa-rd, the creek and -preventA pools :,,f r.om',,forming-. 'Mrs., Jackson replied that basica,ily.the"material'?generati-d durin .1g,-he,t _.; excavation is the,p-j�qp I ?_rty ,that the right -of - way -has back to �.,qFners,. way -has been purchased from. InIthis particular. project, he stated. it, would,, -be. 1-ogicallto.,glvew it -back to -the: properties ,who haV6 retained lArgp,owned, ';r a'd.-the,-materials would'be p7 qp erties n wasted on -the s low spots,- in such a manner- - that It. -is. entirely.- drainable. Mr,. Jackson advised that the AraInage,,drawings in- dicate how the-cohtracto,r,Is,4 to* leaver -'the, =pToperty,, and he the,re- f6re did not anticipate Po 'questioned if,. the, Sonoma Coiunty,.Vaterl Agency would,_­have*..,.-,.-_-, pp7,ques. don y j urisdiction over the property along tfie'c'kee'k- Mr. Jackson .,exp ft entirely- ,��a.b ed-that, at this point �-in,, time ,.the; �channe,� s��.are, e -under private,, ownership'," with - the, �property line. running. to the center - of the tributaries. ,- He advised that in 'fhe, pAste- the only -procee(.ing against j,drisdicti6A: the County had was : an enf or,cement -individuals -who had-.. done ;;something , within; the channel ,.of; an •ob-7 structiv �e; nature.,: by .-making, that,_pqt,!§on,.sect-ify" whathad been done - -:wrong. -� Mr.. Jackson, further explained that after the right-of-way has'been-physically purchased "it -would be their responsibility. , ,Comma Head, questipned,­ithiq,,f the completion of. E�Ct'wO�Uld ;allow .,those .properties ,,,ptesentl -in ;the, category of a.flo,9:4. Y. -hazardous, area .�to,,b,e reevaluated!, and also ,,qu6st.ioii.ed,,j74hq.,.,would :..be regp'qXis',ib,le,.for ---irftplement,,i.iig he,rep Ar i; -Jackson yalqation_. 'rep lie&:that -it:, couldi�a, a.. difference flood'irisiiraiic&,"'for ,7., some..,of. the,pro it -Y perties, �and .;,�ould_be: the responsibil it _:01 City to; ;request an evaluation .-Mr .- Gray stated that a'rate,-study was =.presently in process .and a -prbj',,e c.t of this type would make ,,a . . . difference in such an�evaluatidn. Mt. "Gray --asked Mr. -: Jackson to ,clarify th:& amount of freeboard over -1 would., have, e th,e%,100 year' storm a and verify the c -�wo ld-, ._sufficient: �those homes' 43�om'.d channel , . u b e b f I 10 0ear storm and'kw4it&r-_f Loods, He,-iAlso; reminded Mr,'.Jacks,on', , backwater that t- ah,,mea.n. ='the drainage:..- f romthe -,lots- would.,go., out to the ck, to the channel. Mr. Jackson stated.. that, Mr, ­.,•Gray �s? comments weretac- curate. He -also advised'. that -:the:. —yards under discussion had lost - A good dealofbackyard-area overl-the years,, -and. the -project would' restore the. backyards' of some,.,of,:th6;e:people: - Mr. Jackson �expla:in*ed.that,, because the, property owners' -presently have owner-., —ship to the,. -center- of ..the.,:,creeik, and.,>the_, County would buy the, _. right -of, -way;; , there wou'Ur-b'e a,�buf f err zone from the . top, o,f the newly .constructed ,bank.,to..what -was; the; -top of "the bank of.,the existing zchann6l,-- and-, this ;property mould, go back: to property 2: ne&,to,conc-rkte.,line* the. Chairman Horciza asked "if; was R b .entire chann I e,l-. Mr., Jackson stated that 'it vieutld,be earth 'lined :at a -6 'tor.-Ik_ except. for -,one -'portion between-,. Madison Street and. Ellis:, Stteet,,which-As', critical.•and would have a rock. lined _2" Petaluma City Planning Commission -Minutes, May 4, 1976 'section-. Chairman.Horciza asked'.if the meandering of.the:creek would dead t'o..erosion,.problems. 'Mr. Jackson replied that in -.-the, total..design-job-they had`tried to physically change the invert to control the velocity ,of the water toi, keep it below erosive levels: Mr- Rachal.r.ead the. -land use and right-of-way acquistion and traffic considerations indicated in.the staff report, and also read�the•recommended conditions under„which the Commission should grant-:environmental.approval: In regard to open space, he advised there.was-a possibility of _trails'leading-to Lucchesi Park. Mr. Rachal -stated that since the -Board :of ;Supervisors, who are also the -Board of Directors for ,the Sonoma, County Water Agency, would, look at this on May 17th, he felt the Planning Commission should forward. -their comments regarding open,spat a and conservation at, this time: . Mr..'Gray'reques,ted the Commission to -pass -on two considerations to the -.County: .1.) That'they recognize;,Lynch Creek as -a recreational resource; since it could link the central portion of,the City to Lucchesi Park; and 2) that the Planning -Commission and City staff reserve their comments -on the specific development --plans to see what the actual construction would-be. Chairman Horciza questioned,what-,tools would be used to develop the upper portion toward-Lucche'si Park. '-Mr. Gray replied that the . intent was-to.reserve•the right to develop it�as open space inithe• future, and development would occur as�the Millmeister property and Lucchesi Park developed. Mr. Gray advised the Commission he, did not„ see any ; problem in -.keep n'g, abreast of the progress of this project-, since the Sonoma County Water -Agency has always provided the City with -adequate plans in•the past. 1� A short discussionfollowed,,,af.ter which Comm. Bond moved to inform th'e,Sonoma County Water Agency -that the proposed project was.in..conformance.with•the City's plans,.that the environmental asgessment-was adequate pending•rev„iew-of final construction plans by„.tji'e',City, and also advise~the.•Water-Agency that the Planning Comm ission.views Lynch'Creek as�a recreational resource: The -motion - was - seconded by Comm. Waters: AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT' 1 Comm., Waters asked -Mr. Jackson about the possibility of improve- ments;alofig the unsightly area.of Washington Creek between Maria Drive and',-Ely.Road. Mr. Jackson replied that such requests -are usually brought -to their attention by,the Advisory Committee members, but he would.'be glad to take the -message back to the Committee_ He further advised there were no formal plans to take care of this section of the creek at this time. :xz Petaluma City Planning Commission,.Minutes, May, '4., 1976 . P. TASK FORCE Mr. John. Balshaw, Chairman - of ,the, E.D:.;P': Task-` Force Committee, COMMITTEE' --STATUS. ' `inforined' ,the.•Commission.::that th"e 28=member Committee has -beep - REPORT: broken .down:' to' three>.'bubcommit.tee_'s=sidential,' business,, and " - 'services": H&'advis'e'dr:that -each;:.of.:ahese: subcommittees have agreed that ,the original, Environmen:talr:Des igr,r.P,1an is still a valid d'ocumen.t with ;some' -qualifications,, and they, ar'e:presently.working on these, areas:"to 'assemb'l-e;a, firial:.versioh-As .a i.Commi.ttee as a • whole. �, Mr.. .!Ba;lshaw antic paced, :that.*,diter approximately, . two more. meetings, a ,=draf,t 'r,epor.t,-,,would be re'ady.;;addressing,: 1) General ',policy' recommendations;; '2:)..:How:these:po,l +cy _r•;ecommendations, wound :a_f=feet the `existing ;E.D..P , -:3) A.� sect on -.a'ddressing comments. ".brought :up .by the -,City Council; and, .4) :,'Implemen;tation ;procedures :for' proposed :.policies The time, .schedule -involved.:was.­.d •scus,sed., :and .Mr., :Gray informed the •Commission. that the tentative=:sc'hedule •:indicated °f:orwardng of - the changes to the City 'Council in .August .and the,•Commission would., - have to hold . public •.hear:ings::b,efor.e • that` time. Mr,. Balshaw irif'ormed 'the.•Commi'ssion a draft copy would -''be forwarded .to them as so'on:as possible before: the E.D.P.,'Task'Yorce Committee 'finalized any:' recommendations:- DOOLITTLE PAINT :MART - .Mr::..,Gray brief ly„reviewed .the; request •'for a ,proposed wholesale. EVALUATION/. paint outlet and small ;rental• area -'to -be''located at 451 ,Lakeville' VARIANCE V5 76/8ITE :Highway.: 'Elevations' •were . furriished, ,the Commissioners and. the. DESIGN REVIEW.: location of the project on tlie••site -was indicated. A lir ef';`• • n discussion,follow,ed. Comm. Waters moved' to direct' ,the • Planning Director °to prepare. aiid .. pos.t.,a -Negative Declaration, for .tlie,groj,ec.t.. 'T_he motion' -was - secorided by Comm. Popp- .1 AYES..6 NOES 0 ABSENT'. l' ` Mr.. Gray..explained -.the variance • request `and -the Justifications given by'.the applicant The four" points- the -Commission -must . consider .to Justify .granting a variance mere read' from the staff..- reporto.'Mr'. Gray nformed'ahe Comuissa;gri•all, pr.operty .owners within 300 feet.had been ,rio,tifed. The'�sze of the loading area and: the • amount., of truck.. deliveries were_ ques:tioned-. Mr: Dick Lieb , speaking for the applicant,; advised-that.,the delivery truck is ft wide and .would ;'have ,a clearance' of" two feet on' each. eight.feet side.,, Mr. Doolittle 'inyformed' the'•Commission, he,:would -have, .one: big,';. :.., ,. . delivery'• a.week, ' with some;';, otfferi 'small •dbliveries such as UPS'.. x „ Comm. ;Head* questioned; if' ad'eq.uate fire protection• Maas; 'being -pro-• ., vided-. , Mr: Lieb explained that construction 'of • the building would .{., in .fact .exceed' ttie. -fire. 'stan.dards"',required :for that zone;:, He also': informed' the -'Commission:'.that 'Mr,. Art: Agnew, Jr.: ' of Sunset Line" , and _ Twine; had" indicated --his :approval , of the project .7-- wHe- :also .advised that Sunset:L n6 arid Twine: was.pr-opos ng additional landscaping, and parking around .their structure.,. -4- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes,,May 4, 1976- Comm. Bond° -,questioned if the truck traffic from this business would�be more:than from.the present, -business, and expressed his concern of trucks backing,up into the -street. Mr. Doolittle replied that he would still only have.his regular shipment day, and that the truck°was..not that large to cause concern. Comm. Hilligoss questioned who would use the rental area. Mr. Doolittle replied that they would•probably need to utilize the whole., building themselves... Chairman-Horciza asked for -comments, from -the audience; however, no comments were offered. Comm. Bond moved to grant the variance based on the findings indicated in the staff report. Comm. Hilligoss seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 Mr.. Gray advised that the site. -design for the proposed project was r -basical'ly compatible with the.ex-isting Sunset Line and Twine; and that the.Architectura.l & Site Design,Review,Committee had reviewed the project and,made recommended:changes to the staff's recom- mendations for approval. Chairman Horciza, a member of this Committee,,, clarified that..the;app.licant had not disagreed with any of the recommended conditions of approval at the time of the • meeting. Comm.. Hilligoss moved -to approve the.site design with conditions of.approval'as,agreed upon.at�-the time of the Architectural & Site Design-Review-Committee.meeting. Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES .6 `.NOES 0 ABSENT .1 DE SCHMIRE RESTAURANT Mr. Gray briefly explained the request. by Guy Scohy and Carol - E..I.,Q:. EVALUATION/ Stastny to locate a French restaurant at 304 Bodega Avenue. He USE PERMIT U6-76/SITE 'explained that.a Use Permit_ was necessary to allow serving,of.beer DESIGN,'REVIEW: and-wine•with the meals in a C--N District: The environmental considerations were then reviewed. L . The public hearing relating,'to the Environmental Impact Question- naire was opened. No comments -were -offered from the audience and the public.hearing was closed. A brief.discussion followed -regarding the utilization of the overflow parking area across'Bod`ega Avenue. It was also clarified that there. would be nine parking spaces behind the restaurant and the^facility-would only be designed to seat•25-customers. Mr. Scohy stated,.the employees..would,,be.mainly himself and his wife, and.:therefo_r.e these parking spaces.would not .be taken -up by employees Comm. Popp moved to direct the Planning Director to•prepare and post a'•Negative Delcaration for the' project. The motion was seconded by Comm. Head. AYES 6 NOES 0. ABSENT 1 -5- Petaluma City Planning Commission Mibdt.es,'May 4,°197:6.. The `�ubli-c h:earing' re'la`ting;;::to, the._Use.:P:•ermit was opened. No c6mment's• werE offered'. from, thei audience and the public hearing waas closed". ';Carom. Bond guesttoned" if ­the' restaurant'•s. sale of beer, and wine had to be licensed by the ABC, and what •the 'Commi•ssion's function ;in reviewing -the 'Use :Permit was,. Mr. Gray replied that although " the••ABC- had to grant tthe liquor license,, the Commission"s function was to insure the' compatibility of the °us'e 'with the surrounding neighborhood.. He further advised that complaints by residents in the neighborhood- would, be. a reason. -not .to' grant the Use Permit. Comm. Popp moved to .grant, the Use -Permit with -conditions' of approval as stated in, the st.af f report.. Comm. Hilligoss seconded 'Ehe.motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 The 10 conditions of approval for the site..design as recommended by the staff and concurred with by ,the Architectural & Site Design. Review Committee were then read. 'Comm;. Head questioned how the `applicant felt about these conditions.,'since he felt some of 'the requirements were rather' expensive for -a.small businessman, particularly the need to widen the.. driveway to. 20: feet. Mr. Gray replied that re.si.dentia_1 prop erties'surrounding commercial •uses must`be protected, and that was the intentof the conditions of approval. He further stated that the parking area across the • ,street was already an oiled surface. The landscape plans for, the .:project -were, furnished•'by the applicant.•'and br:ief-ly examined. A short discussion followe& with regard -to -the recommended condi- tdons' of approval.. Comm. Popp maved•for approval of the site design, with conditions of'approval as recommended by the staff and concurred with•by the Architectural- &' S .te Design "Review Committee. 'The motion was •seconded°•by Comm. Hilligoss.. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 LAFRANCHI,, BETTINELLI Mr. Gray briefly explained the request 'for rezoning of property & MICHELS'EN = E..I:Q. "ldcAted at ,205'Keller Street .from. an R-M=G District to a C-0 EVALUATTON/REZONING District for 'the purpose of constructing a professional•office Z3-76: building. Plans for. the pro,posed•,building•were furnished the Commission 16r review.: Mr. Gray stated that -the Commission should consider 'the fact that 'the'only�access .for the project would be `ont`o• Keller' SiOreet, and', that the City had applied for Housing and Commuriity'•-Dedeloptnent. Act' monies -to purchase this parcel for a senior -'citizen housing pr.oj:eet. H'e.informed the•Commission 'a ' traffic ana_lys s�'had been .prepared 'by. Mr. Martinez, a traffic engineer;; 'whi.ch vindicated that the traffic generated by this proposed office. building would be ver.-y ;small and. would -not have a substantial impact;on-Keller Street• as a residential street. ,A•lthough the,traffic_generated would be three times as much as an -6- Petaluma,City Planning Commission Minutes, May 4,_197.6 apartment type•iise,'Mr'. Martinez; -,considered the,amount•still.to be insignificant: Mr. Gray stated,.the.factor still remained that the Planning Commission -would have to•dec'ide.where commercial develop- mentrshould be stopped from spreading=into the residential areas. Comm.:.Head•stated that since the proposed project was within the. Redevelopment. Area, approval. -of -such a -project would be defeating the purpose of upgrading the cor,e.area. He contended there were .presently all -types -of commercial -buildings vacant within the core area.and:the,City should concentrate:on the existing surplus. Comm. Bond.questioned�the-buffer concept. Mr. Gray replied that' it was-a.concept that.the neighbor's were.=apparently in favor of, and that -the idea of,the buffer was,to:provide some -low -intensity use operating during daytime hours, located between the core area and the residential areas;, Mr, Gray stated that the neighbors were'.in favor..of this proposal -because -of the low profile of the building-:in:comparison to.a s'enior-citizens' project, which would• be at least two stories in -height. .Comm,. Head questioned•if there.was any other area in Petaluma that , could be utilized for the senior citizens' project. Comm. Hilligoss- also questioned if there was,an-alternate.spot, and if,the Com-. munity Development money-would,be affected if this property was - rezoned. Mr. Gray replied that three sites -had been applied for--' the -subject site, the St.. James Church..site, and the.old-General Hospital site. He added•„that.rezoning of the subject site and site. -design approval -for the project would•substantially eliminate the .site .from consideration. Mt. Gray also advised that by re- zoning the property-and.ap,proving-,site design plans, the value.of the -land would be increased considerably, and if the City in turn would buy the -property through..cond`emnation they would-be forced to pay-much,more•for the land. Comm: Water.referred to the•Redevelopment-Plan and asked how this project fit into it: Mr. Gray stated it was currently designated as a;.s,tudy area.in:the Redevel.opment:Plan because.the City had an. active case,file.on it. The public hearing relating to the,Environmental-Impact:Question- naire was opened. Mrs. Gillette -informed the Commission she had - bought -,the property adjacent-to,the site -approximately six months before, and she.had-discussed the project with six to eight neighbors who -were in -favor of this type of development and against garden,apartme.nt type development. She also stated she had not,been officially notified of the meeting. Mr. Gray replied that all people -within 300 feet had been. -notified from addresses taken off of the latest assessment -roles; and if she had purchased', the property recently the•.records,had probably not been -changed. He also stated the public hearing had been.published-in.the paper. Comm. Bond questioned why she objected.,to the senior citizens home.. Mrs. Gillette replied that although she had -not seen the plans,.she would imagine it--would-increase-traffic in an area that was already congested>and•where parking was practically nil: -7-- Petaluma.City Planning Commission Minutes,•May 4;-1976 'Mrs; Fred' '•Schram,•• represent ng- the Chamber --'of Commerce, informed the, Commission'there was=viftuiall'y no situation in�downtown Pet:al�a.ma at • this time where �a ' firm. could ,'locate and have parking in close proximity to ;their business: 'He -stated he felt the project with the parking proposed -would be an advantage to the community. Mr. Dick Lieb, representing the applicant, stated.that there has been a`frend in ­the past -for using,this''type of a use.as a buffer. He also stated the''neighbois were in -fairor of the use since it would•not have any weekend traffic. Mr. Lieb stated.he did not, feel the topography was'ro.per'for a senior citizens' type de- velopmente' He also informed Comm. Head that most available commercial spaces in. the core -area were uisually located in•an- tiqua'ted'`upstairs facilities that did riot:have additonal.parking. Comm.' Head replied-that..it.was the intent to:'have additional parking downtown within-'the,next five years;and he felt the only. ~alternative to encouraging property owners to. improve their property was ,to insure that the City provided adequate parking for tenants. He.further'stated•tha.t the downtown improvements would cost °the ta.�payers-:additional money, and 'he objected to generating additional•interferences'•such as the proposed rezoning. Mr.- Gray advised'th'ut the parking proposed,In the -.Redevelopment 'Plan for the first-phase'for-l0-years-in-the,future was simply a replacement-of'the parking that would be removed from Petaluma 'Blvd. and'Water Street from a public safety standpoint, and would not provide•iany.ddditional,parking. He went -on to say that the 25 year long-range.plan.did' anticipate an increase in the parking area, and it -was also hoped=that'the bus system. would help the situation. Mr."Lieb'stated that the taxpayers -of the City had loaned`,$50,000'to 'the.,tore:area Community -Development- Commission, but if the project goes a'hea.d.it.woul:d,not be.costing the tax- payers -additional -money; but would be costing the core.area.owners and merchants. Comme Head argued that whatever. the deficit was, someone was -going- to haue to pay -the money , and it ••would. be the ..taxpayer.- :Mr.'Lieb in;forined Comm. Head of the Community Develop- ment-Comihission's,,intent to.have a self paying project, and explained the principal behind redevelopment-throirgh assessmentsa Mr." Lieb stated he did no,t 'feel that.�the' access off of. Keller Street should -be consldered'�an environmental detriment, since -the Sierra Bank already had-,aCccess onto�Kehler'Street and they had loca�_ed_"the proposed- access close.to the -existing .one to avoid the residential areas, -. Comm. Head saat'ed,he -felt there was a conflict between ,th_e, redevelopment•-pr&J and -th`e .proposed rezoning. Mr. Lieb'felt .that the Pr.oj`ect Area Committee did -not feel there was,a great-conflict.and 'the„fe'elings of the neighbors had been inserted into the • P. A. C`. hearing,, Comm,. Bond' again ,addressed the transi- ton idea;land a great deal of discussion followed regarding the maintenance -of the compact -as . pect of the downtown area and the extent to which the, buff Or zone should"exist. Mr. _ Emmett- Dado informed ,;the , Commission:,he , owned � property on Liberty Street adjacent to the,proposed,site and he also repre- ~ Petaluma City. Planning:Commission-Minutes; May.•'4, 1976 .sented-.another' ro er,t p p y:,owner, Mr. Henry--Reynaud, who was unable. to be, -present -this evening: He spoke about.traffic problems in the-past..and `spoke•against.•development-of a senior citizens' project, or an ap.artmeht-,garden.complex; stating he -did not wish the additional tr,affic.that would result. Mr. Dado stated that in. talking• wi-thi his- ne 'gb bors on : Liber.ty • and'- Keller, they also were opposed to•apartment.type development: He closed by stating he like the idea of the buffer zone•that'.the proposed project would create. Mr.'Bettinelli informed the Commission that he felt it was archaic. Planning. to.haye an apartment'as a transition between commercial -and resident iiaL uses,., and he•,felt the project would provide°an, appropriate buffer. He,stated..he feltthe project would.be of benefit-to.the-City,.s;ince the tax money would-be going for core area.:redevelopment; and the•traffic,.st_udy had indicated that�the traffic generated in the past from the parking area use was more, than what -the intended use would-be. A discussionfollowed regard"ing•the amount,�of units -,a senior citizens' project could contain._and:itsfaffect on"the.sur.rounding-area. It was clarified that a�-'two-story building,could accommodate approximately 20 senior citizen units: Mr. Gray informed.the Commission that he had asked•the.present-building to -be so designed as to -not cast a- shadow:bn any of the primary,structures around the proposed development, -:,and thereby would protect the living environment of the adjacent neighbors. Mr, Bob-Koenitzer,spoke in favor .of. -the -project, stating that although,it might increase the traffic during -the day; it was the evening traffic that he -objected to: He,therefore preferred a use that would•not,generate�such.traffic. T-he.p.ublic.-hearing was closed. Comm. Head moved to require an Environmental Impact-Report_-to•obtain additional information. The motion died. for• a lack of a second. Comm. Bond.moved-to direct the:Planning.Director to -prepare and .post a•Negative Declaration for -.the project. The motion was seconded by Comm. Popp. AYES, 5, NOES 1' ABSENT, 1 The public hearing relating to;the rezoning was opened. Mr. Fred Schram, speaking as--an.adjacent•property owner, informed the Commission -of -,some -of the parking,problems in this area and spoke in favor•of the proposed project. The public,hearing was then closed. Comm. Head:moved that the zoning remain-.thevsame.in•order not to set a•precedent.,,.and therefore recommended denial, stating that a line .must -be.d'rawn-where;the buffer zone-should,be. The motion died for,ilack of a second, Comm. Bond stated.he was 'concerned about -transitional -zoning and' also: as - to: whether the .,project, was ;in fact "spot zoning."° However, -9- Petaluma City Planning Commis s 'ion . Mihutes.j . May- 4,, -? 19-.7 6, --he ­st2ate&'he,. felt- the., use -was. -an;.appropr-iate transitional one, and the'ref ore �ma:de- ;Ia.-.motion to -.recommend.- to the - City Council to rezon the - subj ect:-, property. . to.a., C-O'. District. _Themotion was seconded Waters.... Comm. I Popp spoke -In - f avor of - the project as a transitional., use., 1".% Chairman Horciza stated he hoped • it would - cut down . on,,, the,: traf fic: and also stated that -ideal.-spot.-for a senior citizen -he. felt.: the wa:s, note. ahi AYES 5 NOES I ABSENT 1 S & M�CONSTRUCTION;*- Mr..:* Gray informed the- Commission .,that: under the Fair Political E.I.Q. EVALUATION'/'­�, Practice Act` h6-had 'to. disqualify himself -from the discussion, REZONING4'Z4,-7&[.SI_Tt since:. -he, -owned -property, across -the -street' from the proposed. DESIGN -REVIEW/ develbpment,,, and- could! materially, benefit from .:rezoning of the TENTATIVE` MAP: subject :property,. . He -therefore took. a •seat in the, audience. "Fred ­.Tarr;, Associatt: Plann ers. the request to rezone. -property -Iocate& at 303 Grant Avenue from R-1-6.,500 and a Planned -Unit -'District. -'to a Planned Unit -;,District.. The environ- -ment a-1 cons iderat ions, If or. the -proposed!pr.oj ect were then reviewed. Mr. Tart iftf orifted the:. Commission that, a , portion of the. property r -eight units- and since had P.±e viousIy, -received. an 'allotment .for only,four units-remain6d.for consideration; 'they would not need -to be,consideredby the zResidential -Deve-1:6pindn HE Evaluation Board6 advi.s"'eied that the transfer of -allotments - had been granted -by the City ,Council'. Chairmah'. Horciza questioned- the . -.,developer, if -he, had decided to build -. the triplexes - on Lots 7, and 8 of the subdivision,. Mr. "Pac'hPtd-. 'replied that he 'had decide'd:to-bu'ild,,single-family -units' A orft these two .'lots rather than -the •-triplexes... Mr; Tarr then read the recOmme-tided. c:ond . iticin of the ArchltecturAl & Site Design Revlew,Committee, stating, th at in the event:th,at, single-family constructed on Lots:, 7 and, 8 rather than triplexes; that site-: design�,�-review shall be required- to - modify. the PUD plan. Comm. Hillig&ss questioned -if, the development could not be,built under R-1-6,j500 zoning,. .'Mr'.-, Tarr replied that., although - this zoning could .be' applied,, Planned -Unit -District, -zoning would, eliminate' the chanceof, the -.lots 'being .;subdivided further. iComm., Bond que,,,>'tioned-the-addi-tional.traffic that would-be generated �Iby thepkoject.,and, expressed c6ricern:,abou.t-any additional, traffic .on Grant Avenue-; since, it was not ., f ully F developed - and also was-, the location. of a school. Mr. Tarr replied that there would be'approxi- _m�iteIY 90 additional . tr.Ips_­per • day He .:advised' that at the Ten- Ive -'Map stage stop."sIgns,, -on 'tat one-half- .width street -improvements on 'Grant standards. would-be required. "Add -a.t:ul-de7-,sAc .'to :,City Comm. Bond then. 'jue'st'loned the-size'_.'of'-t'h'e homes proposed. Mr. cb - - 1: Is 2 JOU sq., f t. . and 10 Pgche��_ - replied that the -home on.i�!Lot, the the ge%between 1j80,0 and 1,.900 sq. ft.* .-rest t -homes would' Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes,: May .4,, 19.76 " ' Comm7.` Popp "remind'ed''the_ Commission., that_ the previously approved pla)tP•had'access.from•the'"side:o'f:'the..property, with•only a 20-foot private'13treet_ Hey therefore `,felt that .the proposed project, which.. cons steed 'of a,',fu11 street •. was:• a -.big improvement over the "prior. plan,iand-,provided bett°er irigress;-and egress -to Grant Avenue. The public.hear.ing"tegarding-the Environmental Impact Question- naire wass.opened. Mr. Runge; a resident of -the area, stated he was.impr'essed .with what was pr,oposed"and he approved,of the ..project',. •provid'ing. that -the triplexes. are eliminated. Mr. Ray Rickey,,:.. -an`, --'area: property_ eowne'r; at'ated • there was a lot of traf f is in the evening from teenagers, but•he f,eht-the project would be a nice addition to,the neighborhood. Mr: Dale Amsberry stated he was concerned about+add tiona'k�,traf.fic;.since the condition of the f street ims, .not .-good., -and he,was •:in:.favor of something being done t to "iinprove:-lGr-ant,:•Avenue:. . He also,. expressed concern about any proposed,­stosm •drdinage'• and:-s.tated.he was- glad the developer had decided to•eliminate,the triplexes: Mr. Harold Nelson also stated he.was: glad .that the triplek proposal had been eliminated, and was - in -favor of the project since _it.would•be located on a standard. City street. Mr. Amsberry requested clarification that further 'lot• 'spl t.ting'•wouI'd•-n'ot: be- possible' under a Planned Unit; Develop- ment-: Mr. Tarr replied that was correct:,,since any further lot splitting-.wouldrequire rezoning,, which would -also require an additional public,hearing.- The public hearing was then closed: Comm. Bond moved -to direct the Planning -Director to prepare and post.a,Ne.gative'Declaration for the -project. The.motion was seconded by Comm. Popp. AYES 6- NOES 0, ABSENT. 1 The public hearing regarding the rezoning was then opened. No. comments were offered from the audience, and the public hearing was closed: Mr. Tarr read-the•six conditions of•approval for the PUD rezoning as -recommended -by -the -staff. He also reminded the Commission.of the additional condition recommended by the -Architectural & Site Design,ReviewiCommittee that site design review-would.be required to modify•the PUD plan if.single-family units were built on Lots 7 and 8,.,and the..developer:would then have to comeback before the Architectural•& Site Design-Review,Committee for approval. The four specific findings for -the proposed,Planned�Unit•Develop- ment-necessary for -the rezoning,as recommended -by the staff were. read. Comm: Popp moved to recommend approval of the proposed Planned•Unit.District zoning to the City Council with conditions of approval -as stated. .The motion.was.seconded by Comm. Waters. AYES 6- .NOES 0 ABSENT 1 -11 Petaluma City Planning Commission Mi:nut;es,;. May;:.4,.• 1,9:;7.6 The: conditions. of.t app.rovaa- as: recommended, -by the staff and the - Arch:itectural :fir .Sit.e: Design Review;::Commttee were reviewed. It was:. 4etermined, to,, eliminate, Condit -ions,. No. 1 (:a) , 2, and 3. Comm. t .,.Waters" moved to' approve the siteY•:des-igri, with, conditions of ap- proval as mod-ified.'•:.The..:motion was seconded byComm. Hilligoss. -.--AYES 6 NOES ; 0• . ABSENT, .,;l s iThe, staff --report relating; to 'the:; Tentative 'Map for the proposed 11-lot:subdivision-was briefly -reviewed -,.and the•recommended conditions of .apprgval .of the Planning', Depar,tment-• and City En- gineer, were read_..: :Comm: Hilligoss moored to. ;recommend ..to they City Council approval of the .Tentative Map 'for the Pacheco Subdivision, subject to the conditions of. the Planning Department.• and.. the,. City Engineer. The motion was secgnded' by•Comm. P:opp.. AYES' 6:' NOES, ' 0 ABSENT 1 ADJOURNMENT:, There; being :no, further, -.business-,, the;,meet ng adfourned at 11:05 p,.m, Attest: i ,... .. 'Chairman CJ =12^^ -