Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/02/1976A G E N D A 4PETALUMA CITY'PLANNING COMMISSION :REGULAR MEETING,; CITY 'COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL JUNE 2, .1976 7:30 P.M. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA The Planning Commission encourages applicants or•their representatives to be available at the meetings to 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. Bond Head Hilligoss Horciza Popp Waters Wright STAFF: Frank B. Gray, Acting Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE CONSENT'CALENDAR: REDEV.ELOPMENT.PLAN DRAFT EIR EVALUATION A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSIDERATION TERNE'S. OF,.FICE ,.SUPPLIES ADDITION - E,I.Q.. EVALUATION & SITE DESIGN REVIEW: 1. Louise &_Rinaldo Garbarino - Site design review for the conversion of an existing garage for - office purposes, located at 3'12 Western Avenue in a C -C District. 2. Robert E. Gadow Site design review for a propo to modify a.2- -story residential structure to a professional off ice for use as an accounting.firm, located at 415 " A " Street in a.0 -C District. 1. Public Hearing to consider the adequacy of the Draft Envi- ro nmental Impact Report prepared relative to the Redevelop - ment'Plan for the Petaluma Central Business District. 2. Consideration of the Redevelopment Plan prepared for the Petaluma. Central Business District project area for Plan - ning Commission approval and determination as to whether it is in.conformance with the. City of Petaluma General Plan.. Environmental Impact Questionnaire-.evaluation and consideration of a site design review , for - a. proposed addition to Terne'.s Office Supplies located .at 110 Liberty in a C -C District. WES.TRIDGE-SUBDIVISION a Consideration of; the Tentative Map submitted by Debra Homes, UNITS 463 & 464 TENTATIVE Inc., for West -ridge Subdivision Units'#3 and 464, located:off rP; of "I" Street and Sunnyslope Road. ADJOURNMENT E GULAR MEETING �' SING COMMIS8ION: 2, - _ . P ..„ E 1976. ITY. �. :r 7'.:30 C M. 'COUNCI ' aI MBERSI "CITY HALL - '• - , ' PETALUMA, , CALIFORNIA` PRESENT,:_ Comm. - '. Bond *',- 'Head,:Hilligoss;'.Horciza, Waters: *, Wright, "*Air 'ved 8 39 ;p m ` and 7.40 p;_ m' respectively - ABSENT:, Comm, Popp _ _ r STAFF Frank `B. Gray : , Acig Planning Director. , ;,. Fred E Tarr, Associate Eaanner APPROVAL :;OF MINUTES: The : ;May 18., 19,76, -were approved as submitted.. - CORRESPONDENCE Mr Gray informed the CommissionEthat a`late"Sonoma Count.y.r•,e- f ferral had -been xeceive`d` relative to ra Use Permit request, of a 60 ft x 24 fty mobile ri J Brazil { to a11_'ow the placement submitted b. Maurice - ome on a 6•;000 "to 7;,A000 •sq. ' lot, to eated,at 226 Paula just outside the limits. It, was noted that`° the proposed ',u'se would :b`e• contrary`-to the `City .;Zoning ~ Ordnance;-which only permits ?mobile • homes _to' =be -.placed; in' Mobile Home Park' Districts,. Comm - Wri.ght moved that the Plai ni.ng,!. Director. ^forward a..letter• to the 'Son'oma County ;Planning Commission, - recommending denial . ; of the `Use Permit, andi'catng that, "the ;;use is, not :iri :accordance a with.the Geieral ronmental.Design.P-•lan�or Zoning .regulations f r' :the `Cit . Pena_ lama. The motion was seconded by Comm Hllgoss, . AYES 3 :NOES, ;;1 !ABSENT.' .3' _ "Comm .Head, qual ,fied' his ,negative :voteby:-stating that'• City building 'codes'I,had, xecently been .enacted,.ao °bring the construe ?'ion of ?.mobile homes up. t" "standards; .wt ich­had not :been:-re- 'qui:red; in- the past ;.He 41so: contendedtthaf .homes ..are curr,eritly -`in a. pr ce'range Ah'at . the - working, person .and, younge people t'odaym afford, i alid - .he. - therefore. felt �th`at the l , y community = sih ou ld,= take a c oser o 6 ' n o..`the .rutilzation of mobile homes ,within :the City 'limits:.' Mr " Gray r. a;mobilehome's taxed:as motor vehicle. .,and n`oa ,as- house, therefore, if the City provides services. to that mobile :home "such' asM poli ce, fire, protection, . etc. , the City is 'not: compensated for , ih'ese services:. Mr. Gray explained "that mobilea�hbme' park's were, est ^abIi "shed'to house-'mobile °;homes °because the cumulative assessed valuation of`rt'he,'.;land. for. the; mobile . home parks , wd1dI& generally" pay for..services rendered:. Petaluma, City' Planning - 'Commission Minutes,�June 2, =T6 I. Louise & Rinaldo Garbarino. Si CONSENT ;CALENDAR' ;; to design review,` for ;the cOn" ; version of an.;exist ng garage for office ,purp .ses, `located at 312 •Wes't'ernt.,Avenue- in 4. -C C 'District. 2. "Robert,, °E 'iGddow =' Si•t'e design review :for a. proposal, to modaf;y "` a two story :residential' :strucfure :to a "professional bffic for -.use as an :`accounting firm,,, located at 415 " A " , . 'S;treet ° Aa C -C =Distr:ic•t -. +Comm. HAl' igoss - mowed to : appro a the Consent .Calendar Items iaith, - conditions of -'. approval. b the staff - And concurred, - - with-::by' the Architectural- and Site -• Design•• ' Committ•ee;.° -:The° motion was seconded-b Comm Waters," -- AYES -- 5 .: • NOES - p... r.• -ABSENT In response ­to ,­a question by Mr Gadow, Mr. Gray ;replied at does nave the 'au "thority to waive the Planning Commission not h 3 d } building codes pertaining to fire wall standards: He -added that the Building Inspection Departiiient would•exp lain' these requ re- meits at the time of ' building permit application. TERNE` & .OFFI-CE .' Mr,,. Gray i2ed to the Commission a ; proposal'lby Terneis ; SUPPLIES :.ADDITION' - `Office Supplies. to rgmove -lan existing small storage - shed pre- E, I : Q EVALUATI '& sent attached to the rear of their.' existing commercial `bui_ld- SITE DESIGN REVIEW; ing, located at'110 ^ILiberty Street; .and donstruct.a storage. "addrt on in its - -place A "`brief discussion. followed regarding' ;the size ­of x the:Fproposed :addit Chairman Horcz'a asked the` `for comments:; but none: were ..offered,: Comm Wright .moved to direct the Planning Di.rect'or to prepare' and pos,tr a" Negative Declaration for `the ,prod ect.. The motion was- mm Hilligoss :AYES" ".5 NOE S 0 ABSENT 2 . < r After a lirie discussion_ by the Commission:; 'Comm,. 'Waters .moved. to ,approve` the ;site :design, subs ec,t ' to tle.• of ap- ; proval i as "' 'set forth - ifiL the -st :'rePoit , And..modf- -f'ied by the - Archi;tectural sand Site Design: Review Comini'ttee,. The :motion was - ° •seconded` b,y Coman ' Hrll�goss r. ' "AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 RED EV E EL`OPMENT' PLAN" t•, ,' { z , G a, v .. , - Mr. , Gray informed the Commission ihat Redevelopment .Plan and DRAFT EIR the 'Draft' .E T .;R. for the ;Petaluma 'Centr:al .Business Distri'cf EVALUATION!'4 Project d bee ►referred'y to the Planning `Commission'aby the •. ;Commiss REDEVELOPMENT PLAN -Community Develo p ment. oh.f'br re�iew•:and •comments. 'CONSIDERATTON :, Petaluma: City :Planning- Commission Minutes; June• 2 ,. Janie War ,. man, 'Pr'o,�ect Manager f "or the Redevelopment Area, brief, ed the Commissioners . on the proposed-Redevelopment Plan for , "the 'Petaluma Central'Busii ess Dis,tri'ct. As Ms. t 'Warmaii stated that on October T,; 1975, the Preliminary Rede velopment Plan for the Project Area 'had been reviewed and'.adopted. Comtunity Development - Commssion (foririerly, the- Redevelopment " ' ) and a Protect Area C"omh ttee., consisting citizens; io s_ property owners °:and�businessmen`in the downtown area,, had been appointed: "Shee explained - that the Redevelopment:Plan contem- plate's the,'improvements . of the vehicular-and pedestrian cir- ,tculat on, parking fac,iht es, 'land use patterns; economic " vialiihty,'arctiitectural and landscape design programs, and A. improvement of: the pedestr envirohment'"for the Project Area.. The Petaluma Community Development Commission would also - be gr rit'ed the authority to acqui're' property'within the Project Areaclear and prepare such property; and construct public 'improvements•: , 'Ms. Warmafi stated that the. PAC 'recognizes that the primary s ' " problem in the `'Proj ",ect''Area is''park ng and that traffic cir- eul i:sJ of secondary „concern She informed the - Commisson- r that - the Redevelopment Plan derves three- 'functions - it is a ' legalydocument:, it a use planriing:'document, and it is also'.'a method for financing the project •''' `Ms: Warman indicated, `tfie"'three major parking areas in the miss ct Area and advised that the Community 'Development - Com- J on wou!& have 'author ty to have other p' mission other than thoseishown.on•t'he.'Concept Plan. She then briefly reviewed the various pro p osed." l .` i uses' Ms Warman, informed'.the,Commssion "th'at (heir function at this time was � to took 'at - the plan to 1) ;Determine i.f , the proposed' .11 Red'evelopment�;Plari conforms to.''the`General Plan.of! the City of Petaluma, and 2) Review th'e Redevelopment Plan, and make a. recommendation 'to a`cc'ept` the report She "' inf ormed the Com- mission, that on.. July'12;:` ,19`76, a public hearing of the Community Development Commission ,and-the City Council would be held on the, Red'evelopme'nt`. Plan °and '.the - Dr.afa Environmental ac't + Rep qr "t 7 J Gray' informed the ` Commission that th_e Redevelopment Plan `i ba s the genera ically outlined l -'land uses•:for the downtown area Wand : spe'l'ls'' out `the author=ity,' the- 'Community Development Com- " mission `has in'carryng out this plan De: also advised that the repbr,t` to `t_he City Council explains in detail how the Community Developme`"6 Commission- 'arrived'`at- the establishment of the Redevelopment Plan. . r: Gray "inf`orme'd the Commission that ¢ the "'Draft Environmental. Impact Re p.ort' the' genera T'`impact the Redevelopment Project will have on - the downtown area. based - on -the, General Petaluma City'Planning .Commission- Minutes.. June 2, 1976.. i s C a Plan. He':'advised if 'this . envir,onmehtal - document was adopted', 'no further'. environmental reviews would t�e',required,. Mr. , Gray , infotmed the Commission ;they had two' func'iions th =is: evening', -1) Review the RRedevelopment Plan f,or° the Project Area, and recommend that this ;Redevelopment Plan is - conformity with the General Plan fot the:,Cit of 'Petaluma or that it does not conform with the General Plan, 2) , Look at:,the Redevelopment Plan and, .t Draft E.,I I.R. as., a reviewing; arid forward their comments to the•.PetaY Community Development' ComuCs'sion. Mr Gray ;,advised tliat if ",future development 'or redevelopment would - place 'i - iake °.n this area, it:,.;was the purpose of the ,. Redevelopment Plan that such dct±6n-`w6uld;be done_ in accordance with'that.document ccord' t o - 4 u & s ' Was clarified that. In r •, tion by Comm Waters., it in a So noma County Water Agency'- standards, - future buildings would, have to be scat `back .30 feet from the top of bank. Comm,,Wri ht ,expressed the need to take into consideration the. 'historical 'nature of 'the .s;tructur,es =in the downtown area. Mr. Gray replied that both the Redevelopment•,Plan and-the Zoning Ordinance. r add ress •historical.preservation in. of Petaluma. Warman - also advised,•tliat the Petaluma _Community Development Commission `was : specific on tie preservation of th'e histor toriealdesigno `f infadditon is • q ualiti e s, main - taming, economic vi :ab,ility ; - .Chairman"Horc'iza questikied what areas had been set aside in the _ core •area f,or open space,. Ms Warman replied: , that the intent of.' the downtown xe.dev&lopment °was.'to, create a. central business core area with:rio large areas of open space She briefly related concepts of_; small areas of�'open.spa to be integrated into Fthe core area,: Mr. 'Gray,, stated. that 'the present - ;adj acent park sites and the..McNear, Peninsula. Park „would provide open- .•space refuge .for the core area o f the; City.. . Chairman Horciza whether. the Community Development: t: msion, had 'the powento borrow. money rfor the construction of , new. ho using, -and the renovation of existing houses;: Mr. Gray ..replied that the Community Development °Commission has the - power• to borrow money'und,er general law and to_. u "se•that:money`�in• accordanc6 . witti- the Red 'velopmdnt Plan ''He-further, advised that 1 the use of, ;this` money, for, rehabilitation cons.tr--ucton, wa's not Kincluded in. the. • Redevelopment Plan;, .spe.c fical'ly� because_ it does not contemplate residential construction:; <. . Chairman. Horciza• opened the public Uearir g relating to -the • Draft - .En 't' Impact Report No ,comments .were .offered ,from the 4 audience { and th'e.publ.ic hearing =_4. Petaluma City -Planning Commission::Minut�es J 2 .Mr , the,, Commission- that,. the,,Draf;t - E L, R. for the Redevelopment..Planr.:compl.ies with $tate:,haw n..terms of .the' . General Plan, and was note- intended toy be= specific in nature. Ms , • _,;: 'Warman added that.wery few: cop ='ents: had ;been. "received from previewing agencies , y 6 Mr Y Gr -ay in formed the: Commission..,that the. - Plan Y,would,:possbly fa +11, under ahe, P 'rogram.,:of' the Corps of -� ; Eng veers; ,whi'ch. sped if ies;• that any:,, land-. lying: within l,, feet• r , of a,body. of, water, that :receives- water fram.,that ..rand requires a 4 ; petm to from y the, ArmIY- ,.:Corps, of Engineers, k.: ;: He stated• the ob- r • _ Y� taming of ssueh _aApermit,3s ,a eery complex` prgcedure:: Ms. Warman clarified =Athat no :. comments; received from the Department of =.Fish.:: and Game ,Comm, 'Wright ;moved to: accept , the, Draft ?E.,I.,R.' 'for the Petaluma ; ll M,tCent- ral_,Business; District ♦Redev „elopment Area as submitted by the: .. 1.t ;;. ;Petaluma;., Community, Development' Commission:,. `The motion was r_ peconde.d by., CgpII. .Waters AYES �G_r -ay br summarized„ for: the Commission, the main- factors (: of, the. resolution which. recommended:. adoption• of , the 'Redevel- opment,:Plan fore;.the�Petaluma'. ',Business Rede- velopmentE Eroject € :,r Comm.,. ; Head . ,introduced'- the adopting the Redevelopment y Plan the- •P,etaluma Central - Business District. The motion was- • _ seconded b Comm_ Wa L AYES 5 ,. .NQES': . � Stu r! _ ,, �a•. •t ,Y • a.. (. WESTRIDGE,•SUBDIVISION: A brief d scus9ion:was•held by the :Commission on whether 'the UNITS #3° ­&­44 Tentative Map for. ,4Weseridge Units #3, and A waa TENTATIVE.; MAP s. ,.�_, conformance with City_,.of "Retalum&O ;eneral Plan and. Environ- mental Design P;lan,. Mr ,=.Gray stated: there was approximately - y pp p five :acres> relatvel £lat ce , which . opens - up directly into ,the cul_,de- ac, ... They develo er`;had frs_t :proposed dedi- eating 1 .2: acres. at thern_tersection, of :'I-';' . Street, and, .Sunny- Road ; for ; a neighborhood park ,:area Since this proposal was not aceeptable,tq, the Parks, an& iRecreat ion -Commission or•the Planning„ Commission. ;due. to'traffic.,condtions and land slopes,. the -developer submitted : -a., revised :Tentative 'Map; which. would replace Los " 31 - ,32, _33,,,39, andA :0 ..wiIh.,a ;,neighborhood park.. . ,The applicant proposed to use.thes� area that was unacceptable >for a- neighborhood park, to;construct:three.houses. Two of the houses would seryed._'gff,:of;_.a; private street; i.e., the devel.oper replace lots in�Prop,osal No. l with•park ,. area�and_ ^add, threeolots at , corner of "I" Street and - ® . y . .Sunnyslope�,ROad. .-, .. , .. .'. • t -5- Petaluma ':City Planning .Commission Minutes; - Jun e • = • a ,t -the Zianriinwu.Comm` "ssion� -had. stet ,up ,a - Comm., Headlstat_ed th '- " policy to. estate =lisp linear pa`rkways> ,and `the. ,developer. had agreed • ` +.: to` this = He felt': th - e•" Commission could b,e ,setting 'a '.precedent in ;this:. case - since, the, developer' l`ad proposed - •.&,. parkway design and was " g being, :;t'o4`set -! aside a n_e_ighborhood park .area., Mr'. , Gray replied, that .the General. Plan, stages that I there shall , be a linear }parkway along{ -the ., creek and also in- :.. icatesr the areas fore• resident al ts`. However -,. he- advised that " 1ieM:plan'; =` of a* general °;concept nature - .,and does not •state- 'how... large,•the' >park area.should•bo! or discuss .specifics. Mr. Gray . �." further a'dvised''.there- arez�two -:ways ' tha- t;E:'the Planned Community District "•Pl-an: can be- siinp'lemented„ i.;e 1) Apphcatori :for - Planned ,- Urii.t District rez "o_ g',' ' -2j Application for a sub - division . of land:. r .+ - Mrr. Gray,dn formed •the Commission ,that this was the •;first time a -. Tentative .Map had been,.submitted' for .this- , 'are'a, and .therefore the Pl"anniiig Commis's on..at�­this . time' should 'recommend to the City Council what is appropriate for> park' k' - - e He - informed' the Commission. that ,;four yea•ra -when the Planned Community °District ,Plan had, - he' en - adopted ' it had been agreed that -a linear park would be uffic 'ent.. However,, last year the Parks.. & Rec= r_• eat on Commiss ion -, 'examined the,�recreational , nee'd's • in the • :community. ,and'•r,ecominend'ed that "the` General Plan and the Eriv ron- ;.,ment'al ,Design EIan of'• the "' City' of'•- Petaluma be ;updated' to reflect - the need for a- neighborhood 'park" in' tfi "s area.. This study • .showed, that .'because of the number of children =and the ,nature: of . the: homes: b "e ng built: in The a`r -.ea," `tfiere� ,was a need for a neighborhood: park having. the children. walk_ a mile to the - closest - 'neighborhood'.p'ar - k:;. name'1y McNear Park. In - accord- ance• with: this concern;, the General Plan and °Environmental - Design Plan had: been - revised' in - the­-'Spring of 1975 to reflect thi change, The. Commission, was . informed .;that the: , revi_sed Tentative Map 'indicated a, play area..as well as a linear ,park. • It was noted :tha`t , tl'e' problem- of., the °.narrow "walkways proposed ' - -'Ord , : Iy had •been'.: solved with the. relocation of .the paLLrk area: The, .applicant . indicated . di °sagre'ement 'with- the staff recommen- dation.that :,the developerabe respons ble.for landscape design. plans' - and..development -- of 'tfie ' park •.areas prior. 't'o , dedication to ., the .Cit, • of- -Petaluma•. - Mr:' Gray. sta Y te'd that it as easier for' the ,developer- to_ develop 1the park: in' conjunction with other constructions 'than `i-t.< would' be for.. the City to' develop the ;park `at' a ] :time} ,.,since',tlie City' wou_ld4 have• to - go ;out , for bid and provid'e�adminisitratiVe cost's.' The'-Planning: Commission. agreed with ° +the. staff's` recommendation to� require the developer to- imp rove.�th'e" park. area'; however; .the• Planning Commission -asked !that the Ninutes reflect•a!•?concekrf. T hat` !the. City of Petaluma ' c'ompensat;e•, the' +developer= for. th'e' park improvements .cost., Mr: Graytreviewed with the conditions of approval- recommended the Planning,•staf'f �: :by ,for- Approval, of, the Chairman,`� -7- Petaluma City Planning; 'Commission • Minutes;; June° 2�;, 1976 Tentative Map. im revewng..thee conditions _of approval, the Commissioners were agreement that•.Condition No: 4 should-read "Access - to °,park" .entrances; =: sha.11 be as' on Exhibit A."" Comm, Bond felt,that•Condition.Ne 22.should not be changed., since..it was not within the capabilities of the Planning -Com- misson: to determ =irie how a• project 'should be, financed . Con- dition No. - 25 was. determined to; be added;; which required that the Fire Chief and' City Nnginer shall, 'review and approve"the revised Tentative Map before ;the matter is before the City Council. Comm.' Head ,moved to jrecommend, approval of the Tentative "Map for Westridge Subdivision Units ;#3 and #4.to the,•City Council with conditions s.et forth•bg the Planning.sta£f,.the changes to Condition 'No,s 4 as discussed; and the •additiofi of 'Condition No 25.. The, motion was seconded by Comm.: Wright. AYES.. :6, NOES ' '0•- ABSENT "' 1. ADJOURNMENT,: There•being, no, further business the meeting• adjourned at 9:30' p.m. . Chairman,`� -7-