Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/04/1976A G E N D A PETALUMA CITY .PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 4, 1976' !" = REGULAR MEETING 7:30 PDX CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL.- PETALUMA_, CALIFORNIA The Plane ng Commission, applicantstor,.their, representatives to be' avdi.,lable. a`t 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 CALL:, Comm.7Bond. Head 4illigoss Horc za Popp' Waters • Wright. STAFF: Frank B. Gray; Acting Planning APP-ROVAL,OF MINUTES ° CORRESPONDENCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. Environmental impact assessment for the proposed ASSESSMENT - WASHINGTON- Washington Creek and :Lynch Creek Channel improve - ,CREEK & 1YNCH 'CREEK, ments between 'U.'.,S.; Highway° -101 and' gout, of CHANNEL ` IMPROVEMENTS :, both °waterways with the.. Petaluma River., I '. E.D.Y.. TASK FORCE COHMITTEE Status.. report,to the Planning Commission by the STATUS REPORT': :Chaffrmaii• of they E;.D.P.• Ta :sk Force. Committee. DOOLITTLE PAINT MART - 1.. E.I.Q. evaluation fo.r the proposed wholesale E;,I:Q,, EVALUATION /.VARIANCE paint outlet and -sma]1 rental area to. be located V.5 76/SITE,DESIGN'REVIEW. at 451 Lakeville Highway,. . " 2., Variance consideration for the project to, allow a, reduction in the required rear yard -from. 25. ft. to. "12. -f ,- 3: S te,design� review considerat ons ' or the -pro- posed wholesale :paint.outler.and rental area.,,, DE SCHMIRE RESTAURANT' • 1. Public- Hearing to evaluate, the E I Q,: and E j -Q.. EVALUATION /USE consider a 'Us.e Permit to allow the sale of be located P..ERMIT`U6. -76 /SITE DESIGN „alcohol in<.a proposed" estaur to REVIEW•' at 304 Bodega Avenue; submitted by Guy Scohy � and Carol S;tastny., 2. S ite design review considerations for the proposed,-,,estaurant and parking area. LAFRANCHI,,. BETT NELL -1`& Public Hearing to evaluate the ,E .I .Q. and the . MICHE °LSEN'- E..T...Q. proposed rezoning o.f property located at 205 Keller E%LUATIO N /REZONING` Z3 76.iT Street from an,R ,M -G` District, to a. C -0 District to w construct a professional -office building, v M I N U T E S • P.ETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION'' MAY.4, 1976 REGULAR MEETING'' 7:30 P.M. :CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS; CITY' HALL = PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm: - Bond; Head, Hilligoss,, 'Horc• za,. Popp, Waters ABSENT: ,Comm Wright STAFF': 'FrankB Gray, Acting Planning Director Fred E. Tarr, Associam Planner Leo P. Rachal, Associate Planner APPRbVAT: 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 - irif`ormed -the 6ommis8idriers -that copies of the summer schedule of courses' for the University of California Extension in. Berkeley were available for those who interested. ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACT Mr. Carl Jackson of-the Sonoma County, Water Agency addressed the- ASSESSMENT Commission and- briefly explained the proposed project for m- WASHINGTON CREEK '& provement of "Washington an'd - -Lynch -Creeks for the west side -of town LYNCH CREEK up to the ;-freeway. He advised that _there were no large structures -IMPROVEMENTS`. to.replace and the•improvements would conform to the existing box culvert - under 'kadison with some modifications: Mr. Jackson also advised that landscapng- plans would be furnished at a later date and would:be coordinatedwith , th_e'Cty. 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 this time was.to•try to realign the channels L to.'bring them in•at'A - tangential arrangement - w 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,- :saated..that one concern was the ques- tion- of-whoa would be responsible for•improving low areas where thererwas-no excess spoil materials - and low. spots- 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• 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 Planning Commission,, Minutes,, May 4., 1976 drainage.toward creek And -prevent pools fr :om forming. Mr,., Jackson replied that, basically. the"material':generated during, ,the excavation is given back to 't:he pro,perty� ;that. the right -of -way-has been purchased from. In:this par_ icular. project, he stated. it-. would 'be, logical to. ,given? it back to the properties ,who haver retained large, owned p;rgp•ert es and the ,ma'terials would'be wasted on -the low :spots, in. such a manner- •' that It. entirely-- drainable. Mr.. Jackson advised' that the: drainage, drawings n- dcate how the =:cont•ra'ctor,'� s to„' leave , the; ;property,, and he there fore did not :anticipate any -`ptbblems,..:, . t omin>. Popp ' quesaioned' if the Sonoma County Vat C er Agency °.would have.' Jurisdiction over the property along Mr. Jackson explained• that at -this .point, - in,•time,ahe; channels�'are,, entirely under private­ owner ship,: with•the•pr;operty, lin_a running-to the center• of the tributaries. •.,He advised that in 'the , past' -the only jurisdiction the County had was an.en'forcement proceeding again individuals • who ,had,. done ; :something ,within. the channel .of;, an •ob - s:tr.uctive nature,: by making that, person. what ,had been done •:wrong,.• Mr. Jackson, further. explained :that after the-right-of-way has purchased it be the - :.:<:: • cs.} t :. . ;Comm.> Head questionedt �if the completion of, 'this project ,would - ;allow.,those properties presently • in ;the, category of flood ;. . s 3hazardous area ..tito b'e reevaluated and also ,quest on who ,would .be resp'onsib,le for• ° imp lementing the reevaluation_. Mr Jackson s repled,ahat it:.could- make a difference ,on f lood insurari`ce fo , r n some.,of. the ,properties., ,'and it: would -be: the ,responsibility : of the • City �,to• .request an evaluation• : Mr.- ;Gray .s't 'that a rate study, was =.presently in process - a ;proj',ect, of this type would make . a difference in such an� evaluation. Mr,. 'Gray _asked .Mr,. Jackson ,to ,clarify the amount of freeboard over'-: the,100- year' storm the channel.wouldhave ,.,,and- verify that the channel -,would•,• b.e of - auf'ficient depth to ; prote'ct those domes : •from :a 100 ear- storm andTbackw4ter floods:,, He,-}also; reminded Mr .Jackson° that the.lots had- Class ," _A ". kdraina e, whi:ch . :geant the drainage ' _ g.. from,.ahe ,lots would•.go.- out• the •• street *sand n'o't,b•ack, to the,'„ channel. Mr. Jackson stated: that, Mr:,.,Gray',s. comments were ac- curate. He also advised. that- .the':yards ,under discussion had lost a good deal of.backyard area over the years„ and• the - project would x•es.tore the,-.backyards;-of some -, the9e people: - Mr. Jackson explained.thafi,; because thel property owners' presently have owner — ship. to the: - -center of ,the; :creek and. >the, would buy the, right -of, -way;, there..would;:;be a buffer: zone from the top of - the newly constructed ,bank to,.what' -was; the:-top 'of .the bank of :,thee exsting;wchannel;' and ,property, would go: back' to 'th'e- property . . , ;owner. . ... ., _ u • >Chairman. 'Horciza asked ,if; •i.t was planned , to concrete. line tYte entire channel: Mr. Jackson stated that 'it .would earth lined :at a '6 to ~•1 slope;, except- for,one''p.ortion b :etween= Mad ison Street and.Ellis Street - which- .is;•cri'tical•and would have a rock. lined L Petaluma City Planning Commission - Minutes, May 4, 1976 'section, Chairman Horc za asked: if the meandering of.the: creek would tlead' to..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.: Radial :read 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 - sit'ated that since the -B'oard :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 and conservation at this time•. . Mr:..'Gray'requested -the Commission to-pass two considerations to the County:? .l.) That'they recognize.,Lynch Creek as�a recreational resource,; since it could link the central portion of City to Lucchesi Park; and 2) that the Planning-Commission and City staff reserve their comments-on the specific development to see what the actual construction would-be. Chairman Horciza questioned , what -,tools would be used to develop the upper portion toward 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 ,,se6.any;problem. in - .keeping abreast of the progress of this project -, since the Sonoma County Water has always provided the City wi'tfi .adequate plans .in•the past. A short discussion followed,;after which Comm. Bond moved to inform th'e County Water Agency -that the proposed project was.in..conformance : with•the City's plans,.that the environmental assessment - adequate pendng•review final construction plans by tq City, and also advise�the.•Water Agency that the Planning Comfi ssion.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--along the unsightly area.ef Washington Creek between Maria Drive ` and' -Ely.Road. Mr. Jackson replied that such requests-are us.ially brought.to their attention by Advisory Committee members; but he would 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. -3- Petaluma City Planning Commission..Minutes, May '4 '1976' , .. t .. ♦ ... i ,.. - 1. .' 5,.: .. .. ., P -. TASK FORCE : Mr. John,. Balshaw, Chairman of ;the E.D 'Fi Task; Force Committee, CQMMITTEE` STATUS nformedr the Commission that tYi?e 28:- member Committee. has been , 11 „. RERORT: :' broken down. -into three�subcommit.tee's- res- idential,' business., and s'ery ces'.': He that” eachr•,of ;these: subcommi•t ees have agreed • that the orig" "final, Environment'a1,:Design..P.lan is still a valid d'ocumen:t wi th , • ;some' -,q "ifi cations ,, and .they. ar'e - presently . working on these, areas: 'to' 'assemb`-16 ;a •final'.. version As , :' •Commi.uee as a whole. ' Mr.. °Bal haw anfiepated- .that. ,after approximately . awo more. meetings: a ;=draft 'r,epor.t -,wouldt be ready ,;addressing;: 1) General " olic recommendation '2' .:How these policy recommendations' round- p y of =feet the existing E D.P ,, :3) A.�-,sect•ion - a'ddressing comment ^s. br -ought :up .by the .City Council,,; . and.; A. .;Implementation procedures or•' propos.ed,.policies:; The time'schedule °involved .was.:d •scussed., and :Mr',; :Gray informed the Commission. that the tentative.- sichedule.indicated forwarding of the changes to the City Council in .August : and the,,Commission would•- - have to hold . public •.hearings E,efor:e that,' time Mr,. Balshaw fn1brmed 'the.•Comm 'scion a draft jcop.y would 'be forwarded to -them as soon:as possible before the E.D.P.,'Task'l once Committee 'finalized Any.'recommen dtion's,. DOOLITTLE PAINT MART Mr briefly, reviewed the request for a proposed wholesale E EVALUATION/' ,Gray paint outlet and small rental • area '''to be " -located at 451 • Lakeville': . `I ; ,,Q VARIANCE.V5 76 /SITE Highway :. Elevatio'ns.•wer e;:furn shed ,the Commissioners and the DESIGN REVIEW.. location of the pro on the• site was a ed.: A lirief j?ect ndic discussion, followed. Comm. Waters moved to direct the Planning Director °'to prepare: and post .,a Negative Declaration for the pro�'ect .'The ;motion, was Seconded` by Comm Popp �.. Y NOES 0 ABSENT'. 1 6 ' AES .. _ . _. _,- Mr. Gray..explained '.the vari d ance request an th'e �usti•fications given, by the applicant The - 'f;our points' the - Commission -must . I consider to 7ustify.grantng . a variance merer,ead from the saaff" report o : Mr'., Gray inf ormed the Commission all property .owners within 300-f eet - had been :no,t fed The size of the loading area and: the •amount,of truck..deliveries were q.uestioned,. Mr: Dick Lieu; speaking f,or the applicant, advised that de1'ivery truck is eight feet wide and, ;iapuid.;'have a clearance of two feet on each :, E side.,, Mi. Doolittle info:_rmed' the" Comm ssion..he,:would have, .one, big; :. ;.. s, delivery a. week with some other small deliveries suchfas, UPS'.. A Comm, Head questioned if' ,adequate fire protection* Maas, being -pro - vided: Mr: Lieb exp ained that constrdttfon of the building would in fact exceed'. the. fire +saan.dards required for that • zone. ; He also' ..informed the .'Commis,s on. at 'Mr, Art Agnew, ur:: 'of Sunset -Line ana"� Twine; had °� indicated - -his :approval , of -the proj.ec - t . He -also .advised that. Sunset Line arid Twine -was. proposing additional landscaping and parking around .their st- ructure, ,. Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, May 4, 1976 Comm. Bond°queationed if the truck traffic from this business would�be more:than from.the presen .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. Dooli le 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, moued 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 for­ the project was ti - basical'ly compatible with the ;existing Sunset Line and Twine; and that the :Architectura.l & Site:Design,Review had reviewed - project and,made recommended_ changes to the staff's recom- mendations for :approval,. Chairman Horci,z.a, a member of this .:Committee.,, clarified that..the; applicant ' had not disagreed with any of the recommended conditions :of approval at the time of the meeting. Comm.. Hi ligoss moved -'to approve ;the..site design with conditions of.ap,proval'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 'expla'ined that.a Use Permit was necessary to allow serving beer DESIGN REVIEW: and- wine.with the meals in a C -N District: The environmental considerations were then reviewed. L The public hearing relatirg,'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-r-egarding the utilization of the overflow parking area across'Bodega Avenue. It was also clarified that there. would be nine.�parking spaces behind the restaurant and the, fac would only be designed to seat•25- customers. Mr. Scohy. sta't'ed ,the employees..would, mainly himself and his wife, and.:theref o_r.e these parking spaces not be taken -up by employees Como. 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 Mibdtes,'May' 4, 197.6 - :-, . Th ubll- hearing' re'la the Use was opened. No : O: comments .sere offered' f rom , the audience 'and the public hearing was` 016sed". ;Comm. Bond questloned: if riestaurant'. sale of beer and wine had to be licensed by the ABC, and what the 'CommIssion's, function "in reviewing-the :Us Permit was,. '.Mr. -Gray replied that although t-he�'ABCI ha• to grant the liquor' license,, the s function was to insure the' compatibility of "the =rise 'with the surrounding neighborhood.. He further advised that complaints by residents in the neighborhood' would ,be.a reason-not tb grant •the Use Permit. Comm. Popp moved to grant, the Use -Permit with -conditions of approval as stated in, the staf f report- Comm. Hilligoss seconded 'Ehe.motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT I The 10 conditions of approval for the site ,design as recommended by the staf and concurred w-1 by the Architeciural & 'Site Design. the Review Committee were then read. , Comm :. Head quest'loned t `dpplitant-felt -about these conditions., since he felt some of 'the requirements were rather',ex -pensive for -a - small businessman, particularly the need to widen the.. driveway to AY f eet. Mr. Gray replied that re ' s 1, det t, ' ia-l.proper-ties*surrbunding commercial•uses. must 'be prfte_r_,ted, and that. was the intent, of the conditions of approval. He "f urther stated that the parking area across,", the ; street was al-ready an oiled surfac4. The landscape plans for the • proj ec-t - were f urni§hed ' the applicant .,.tLnd' briefly examined. A sho rt, discussion followe&with regard - the recommended condi- 1oft t s' of approval Comm. Popp m6ved•for approval of the site design with conditions of'appr.oval as recommended by the staff and concurred with•by the Architectural-& ' SIte Design Review Committee. 'The motion was �ec6nded-•by Comm. Rilligoss.. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1. LAPRANCHI,,, BETTINELLI. Mr. Gray briefly explained the request 'for rezoning of property MICRELSEN *__ Ei.I-iQ. ldedt-ed. at 205 X-ellerr Street f rom. an R-,M'-, District to a C-0 EVALUATION/REZONING District for the purpose of construct a professional•office Z3-76' building. Plans for the proposed -building were ,-furnished the Commis.sion 3for review.; Mr. Gray stated that the Commission should consider '.the fact that 'the only access f or the projec,t would be - bnt'o. Keller' Street that the City had - applied f or Housing and _V Ibpment, Act monies. , to , purchase this parcel for a senio r - . citi`zen housing proj�eqt. He informed the. Commission a traf ic an4lysis�'had been prepared 'by. Mr. Martinez,, a traffic engineer:; ",which' indicated that the traffic generated by this proposed 'office. building would . be Very ;small and 'would not have a substantial impact - Keller Street, as a residential street. ' on ..A•1though the � trafhc generated would' be th--e times as much as an -6- Petaluma Planning Commission:Minutes, May 4,_197.6 apartment type rise, Mr': Martinez considered the•amount;still.to be insignificant,: Mr. Gray stated.the.factor still remained that the Planning,Commission.would have to•decide. where commercial develop - mentrshou -ld•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 upgrad ng•the•cor,e. area. He contended there were .presently all commercial - buildirigs vacant within the core area.and:the,City should concentrate:on the existing surplus. Comm. Bond..questioned�the•buff,er 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. n :comparison to.a s'enior 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. Hlligoss also questioned if there was -an-alternate. spot, and if,the Com -. munty Deyelopment money•would 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.-des approval-for the project would substantially eliminate the .site .fr.om consideration. Mr: Gray also advised that by re- zoning the I property -and:approving design plans, the value.of the-land would be increased considerably, and if the City in turn . would•buy the property through,.condemnation they would-be forced to pay -much,more• for the land. Comm: Water.referred to the. Redevelopment and asked how this project fit into it: Mr. Gray s ated,it was currently designated as a.,stud area.in:the Redevelopment =Plan because.the City had an. active case<f ile.on it. The public hearing relating to the,Environmental•Impact.Question naire was opened. Mrs.. Gillette- informed the Commission she had- bought property adjacent -to site -approximately six months before, and +she.had - discussed the,project with six to eight neighbors were in-favor of this type of development and against garden type development. She also stated she had not 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 t and if she had 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 obj.ected. 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.0 ty Planning Commission Minutes, 4 'Mre Fred '•Schram,' reptesenf ing the Chamber- - -'of Commerce, informed the Commission' there• was virtuiall'y no situation in � downtown Petaluma at - .-this time, where �a ' firm. courld , aocate 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, s;tated.that there has been a' trend in' the , past- for using, this' 'type of a use . as a buffer. He also stated the' neighbors were in - faVOr of the use since it would-not- have any weekend traffic. Mr.'Lieb stated.he did not, feel the topogr was proper' fo a senior citizens' type de- velopmente' He also .informed Comm. Head that most available coimmercial spaces in.the core-area were uisually located in taqua'ted'`upstairs - that did not :have additiona parking. Comme::Head replied that ..it vas 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 staated•tha.t the downtown improvements would cost °the ta:kpayers money, and �he.objected to generating additional •interfer:ences••such as the proposed rezoning. Mr o Gray advised'th'ut parking proposed "in the. Redevelopment ' the first - phase 'for- 10•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 - .additional parking. H'e went -on to say that the 25 year long- range.plan,dl''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 the City had loaned `,$ 50,000 , to'the.., core <area Community - Development Commission, but if the project gees - aIhea:d, it .would , not Ue .costing the tax - payers additional - money, but would be costing the core':area. owners and°merchan'ts. Comm. Head argued that whatever the deficit was, someone was going to haue to pay•the - -money and it -would,be the taxpaYer .Mr 'teb informed Comm. Head of the Community Develop - ment Commission's invent to h a self - paying project, and explained the principal behind redevelopment - through assessmentsa Mr." L eb stated he did no feel that . �the' access off of Keller. Street should be considered' � an environmental detriment, since-the Sierra Bank already had access - on-to Keller Street and they had locaf_ed_'the proposed-access close o•the- existing.one to avoid the residential areas Co=. Head stated �he felt there was a conflict &e'67een redevelopment °project and -the .proposed rezoning. Mr.. Lieb' felt . that the Pr.oj`ect Area Committee did-not feel there was , a great 'the'feeli'ngs of the neighbors had been inserted into the •P.A.C': hearing,,, Comm'. Bond again addressed the transi- tIon idea; and a great .deal of d•ls,cussion followed regarding the maintenance•of the compact aspect of the downtown ,'area and the extent to which the b uffer zone should" exist. -Mr.. Emmett Dado informed the , Commission .,he owned property on tiberty Street adjacent to the proposed site and he also repre- Petaluma City Planning;Commission.Minutes, May 1976 .seated another'proper.ty: owner Mr. Henry.-Reynaud, who was unable. to be present this evening. He spoke about traffic problems in the past,. and'` sp 'oke•against - development - .of . a senior citizens' project, or an apartment °,garden, complex, stating he -did not wish the additional traffic' that would result. Mr. Dado stated that in. talking'w th•h s neighbors on Liberty • 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.have an apartinent a transition between commercial -and residential, uses, ;and he•,felt the project would provide an appropriate buffer. He ,stated ..he felt the project would. be of benefit•to. the - City, .since the tax:money' would - be going for core area.: redevelopment;, and the, traffic_ had indicated that�the traffic generated in the past from the parking area use was -more than what - the intended use would-be. A discussion followed regarding the amount,:of units senior citizens project could con tan.,_and atsfafftect on'the-sur:rounding -area. It was clarified that a two - story building•;could accommodate approximately 20 senior - citizen unitsr Mr,. Gray informed ",the Commission that he had asked•the.present - buil'ding to-be so designed as to•not cast a shadow. any of the primary structures around the proposed development:,and thereby would protect the living environment of the adjacent neighbors. _.. Mr, Bob tzer,spoke in favor .of -the :project, stating that although might increase the traffic during "day, it the evening traffic that he-objected to: He preferred a use that would •not;generate•.such.traffic. The .public 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. Bondmoved-to direct the:Planning.,Director too prepare and post "a•Negatve Declaration for project. The motion was seconded-by Comm. Popp. AYES. 5' NOES 1• ABSENT..l The public hear:iing 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 lne.mus - 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. An fact "spot zoning. "° However, -9- Petaluma City Planning Commission .Mimi =es.; May" 4;, ? 1976.; -he st'ate&'he. felt the : use - was an appropr -iate transitional one, and the'refore� made :+ :a mot to .recommend, to' the City Council to rezon the - sub :j ect:'• property. .'ta .a• C-O'. District. _The motion was seconded .: by Eomm :,-Waters...•,-Comm. I Popp spoke yin favor of •the project as a trans •tional. •:: Chairman .H'or-ciz& stated he hoped • it would • cut = :down _.on`, situation .at ,the corner and also stated that .. •lie . felt: the .site wa's' not.', ani ideal: spot •for a. senior citizen AYES 5 NOES 1 ABSENT 1 S & M� CONSTRUCTION;*- Mr.:" Gray informed .the. Commission . under the Fair Political E.I.Q: EVALUATION /'• Practice Act h'e had to. disqualify himself-from the discussion, REZONING 'since. -he - owned, property across - the ,street''from the Proposed. DESIWR'EVIEW/ development,' and' could materially• benefit from ;rezoning.of the TENTATIVE: MAP: - • _' subject property,. • He therefore took. a .seat . in . the • audience. "'Fred •Tarr;, Associate; Planner,: briefly.. explained the request to rezoine ',property -Iocated'. at 303 Grant .Avenue from R -1 -b, 500 and a Planned Unit District: to a Planned Unit:'Dstr -ct.. The environ- menta =l cons iderat ions, .f or. .the proposed ,pr.oject were then reviewed. Mr. Tarr inforzped the:• Commission that a . p,orton of_ property had previously, - received. an, .for eight units., and since only , £our units • remained. for consideration; they would not need-to be considered by the Residential Development Evalua;tion Board': HE advised that the transfer :of , allotments had been granted-by the City' , ' Council'., Chairman Horciaa questioned •the. if -he had ,decided to build ; the triplexes on Lots T and 8 of the subdivision. Mr.. ' Pacheco.'replied that he' had: decided' :to_bu'ild•single- family.units' oni these. two .'lots .rather than - the •'triplexes... Mr: Tarr then read the reeommende condition of the Architectural & Site Design Review Committee, stating, that in the event that single- family Home's are.consiructed on Lots : 7'and 8 rather 'than triplexes; that. ' s to = design- review shall be required - to PUD plan: 1 Comm. Hill- igos :s questioned -if the development, not be under R-1- 6, j :5 , 00 zoning,. Mr`. Tarr replied that., although -this zoning could be! applied., PIanned str:ict.'zoning would eliminate the chance• of the 'lots 'being xsubdivid'ed further. • j icomm' Bond' q=uestioned the•additional.tr.affic that would-be generated by the proj ect.:and' expressed` concern about any additional, traffic ,on Grant Avenue, since it swas not ., fullyF developed • and ,also .was- loc'ation, of :a school,. Mr. Tarr reel -ied. that there would be approxi irately' 90 additi onal .tr ps••per. day He .:advised that at the Ten- '.tat stage stop - signs,• one- half.wd h street improvements on - _ Grant Avenue, and - a cul -d'e -sac `to: City standards would b'e required. Comm,. Bond then•questioned- the•size"of the homes proposed. Mr. Pacheco replied! that the :home on,Iot.l. is 2, sq. ft,: ; and the -rest • of the -homes would •'range - between 1, 80.0 and 1,900 sq . ft. • =10- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minu'tes,: May.4,, '1976 'Comm Popp "reminded "'the Commssion. previously approved pla)tP +access! - ,from• the' "side: of : thee„ property, with only a 20 -foot 13 ps vate� treet. He - re ` thit. the proposed project, which.. consisted "'of z,* full street ,: was:• a - .big improvement over the "prior.- plan !and- ;provided better, ingress; -and egress - to Grant Avenue. The public .heir.il* `regarding -the Environmental Impact Question- naire wass-.o ; pened. Mr. Runge; a resident of-the area, stated he was.impr'essed witht what .was proposed-and.he approved,of the .:proj'6ct',.� ;proy d'- ng: that -the triplexes. are eliminated. Mr. Ray Ricke 'area. ro : ,owner.• zt'ated • there was a lot of traf f is .. .. y �'•- "an`: P P ert Y in the. evening from teenagers „, but•he•feht - the project would be a nice addition to,the neighborhood. Mr: Dale Amsberry stated he was concerned about add tional�araf.'fic, `since the condition of the f street W'a's not.'good, - and he ,was in!.favor of something being done t• to "iinpr.ove'lGr-a-nt�,:•Avende;. . He also;: expressed concern about any prop osed, •dra nage,- .and':- stated he was, glad the developer had decided to• eliminate =the triplexes, Mr. Harold Nelson also stated he:was:glad tliat'the triplex­,.proposal had been eliminated, and was- in favor of the project since ,it.would located on a standard. City street. Mr. Amsberry requested clarification that further lot' 'split.ting'•wouYd`•'n'ot be . possible' under a Planned Unit; Develop- ment Mr-. Tarr replied that was correct:, since any further lot splitting - would;require:rez,oning,, 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 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 six conditions of•approval for the PUD rezoning as recommended -by the - s ; taff. He also Yeminded the Commission of the additional condition recommended by the - Architectural & Site Design that site design review?wouid.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 ment for-the rezonitg recommended -by the staff were. read. Coinms Popp moved to recommend approval of the proposed Planned-Unit 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. Minut;es,;.May;:4,.• 1976 ,The, of,t approval -as. recomme.nded;•by the staff and the Architectural . ;Sit,e; Design Review,,Committee were reviewed. It wa&. Aet:ermined. to; • eliminate, Conditions, No. l (:a) , 2. and 3. Comm. t . Waters moved to' approve the site .design; with conditions of ap- :proval as-modif'ied '-•:.The:- :motion was seconded by Comm. Hilligoss. ^.-AYES, 6 .'. VOEE • O• , .:,. ABSENT; .•;1 s lThe, staff -�repor.. -t rela.tin' . ; g; to the, Tentat -ve: 'Map for the proposed 11 -lot: subdivision-was briefly reviewed-,. and the .recommended conditions of .apprq:vatl .of the Planning', Department City En- gineer were read • .: . . :Comm': Hilligoss moored to, ,recommend' :to they City Council-approval of 'the .Tentative riap 'for the Pacheco, = - Subdivision,, subject to. the conditions of: the .Planning, Department • and'.. they. City Engineer. The motion was seconded- by Comm.. P:opp•. AYES' 6 NOEc 0 - ABSENT" 1 . .1 a ... ADJOURNMENT: Therein being :nol further, - .business,, the;,,meeting: adjourned at ll:05 p.m. - 'Chairman . Attest: .LU2 ,