Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/15/1976..R E V I S.E*D AGENDA PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 15, 1976 . - REGULAR `.MEETING 7-30'P.M. t C ITY COUNC CHAMBERS CITY'HALL. _ :: PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA The PlanningCommission.enco applicants or representativs to be available �rages appl e at the meetings to "a"n's"wer qu - e s, I t o n . s, .- so .­- tha .. t- , 'no ­ Agenda ­1 item ­ nee be I- deferred to a later date due to a 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 SONOMA COUNTY l.. Amal8amat - ed Endeavors,- Application fora - change in zoning REFERRALS: from the existing M-1 '(Light Industrial) District to the . A =2 (Secondary Agricultural) District for approximately 5 acres located at 3355 Redwood Highway.South, to allow the restoration of the Haystack larich for a contemporary market place. 2. Roy &,M.. Ruzsicska Martin &'Betty Albany - Application nge;i z - f 4'0 a located at 1802.O1d for a n� zoning fo &C Adobe from the existing Primary Agricultural-S-B5 (1. minimut) District -to, a Primary Agricultural-B5 (5-acre minimum) District ds,a condition of approval per Minor Subdivision 5339, CITY COU NCIL UNCIL Request by City Council to the sign amortization schedule REFERRAL: and consider extending. the deadline for an additional. year. JACK-IN= THE-BOX Environmentalxeview and,site'design,,review considerations ADDITION - E..I..Q.. submitted by Inc. to a ' dd a,walk-'in freezer and dry - EVALUATION & SITE storage. onto the back Of the existing Jack-in-the Box DESIGN REVIEW: - Restaurant located at 841 Washington Street. LEONARD PAUL JAY PublicHearing for Environmental Impact-Questionnaire-evaluation E.I.Q. EVALUATION &. and consideration of a prezoning application submitted by PREZO Z8 76: Leonard Paul Jay'for approximately 2,9 acres located at . NING 10 Berger Lane to be redesignated from a County R-R (Rural Residential) District to an R- 1-20,000'(Single-Famil Residen- tial., 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size District. Petaluma City Planning Commission.Revisidr- Agenda, Jun4.15,:1976 •. I .fin 1 . .. .... � ��. MINtTE.S "~ TALUMA, ,CITY,- PLANNING COMMISSION a : PE JUNE 15, 1976 GULAR MEETING a r , 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY,HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm. Bon d *,;Hill ggss Horciza,.P;opp,,Wright *Arrived at 7:40 p.m. ABSENT -:, Comm. Head, •Waters STAFF: Frank B.,,Gray, Planning,Director. `Fred, E... Tarr•,.. Associate Planner APPROVAL OF ;MINUTES: ` Minutes of. June, 2, 19;:76,. were , as submitted. CORRES'PONDEN.CE,: Cray informed the Commission that the United. States Post Office at;''Pour.th• .and ".D" .Streets , w.as -accomplishing some modi- fications to.•provide parking places for their Post Office trucks. The ,plans' were then .shown •to. the Commissioners and it was clarified that no additional landscaping was proposed. SONOMA COUNTY 1. Amalgamat'ed,Endeayors ; Application - -for a change in zoning REFERRALS: : from. the existing,M -1 (Light:Industrial) District to the A -2 (Seto ndar- y.Agricu'ltural). Dist -rict for approxima tely , 5 acres located, at:.,335.5 :,Redwood South, to allow the restora- tion of :.the 'Haystack Ranch for ; a contemporary market place: Mr. Gray briefly reviewed the:prop.osal, stating that this type of agricultural project,would ;fit into.the surrounding ,area.as- the,General-.Plan. designates the area for rural devel- opment.. The Plannin:g.s,taff the.refor,e recommended no.opposi- tion to•the proposed - rezoning... Mr. Gray clarified that. ; the adjacent zoning is Light In- dustrial with zoning - to'the south. He further informed the.Commission- : that.access and-egress to the site `would have.: to. be considered at the time of site design review by Sonoma ,County,. , A short ,discussion fo`llowedi_.after which Comm. Wright moved to direct the Planning Director to•forwar& a letter to the County indicating no opposition tq- the - proposed rezoning. The seconded by:. Comm^. Hilligoss.: AYES,,. 5 NOES 0, ABSENT 2. 2. Roy, -.,•:& M.- Ruziscska and. Martin ,& Betty. Albang -.Application for a change•in•zoning- for.,40. :acres located at 1802 Old Adobe Road'from''the existing Primary Agricultural -S -B5 (1.5 -acre _....__ . mi . , '�nmum)• Ds'tret to -a Prmary'`Agr- cultural -B5 (5 -acre min -- imum) , Dis:trict. as a condition `of -approval per Minor Subdi- vision 5339: Planning Commisson.Minutes,•J* 15.,•1976 • Mr. :Gray summarized the zoning request., stating that the matter was : routine and in accordance :.with- the.General'.Plan and Envirbnmental Design Plan for the City•of Petaluma -- The applicants 'were. ,present .and 'clarified that access was currently obta=ined.. - via a County -maintained ;road. Comm. Popp . moved to instruct the Planning Director to forward a letter to the County stating no o n ppositio to "the proposed change in zoning. Mr. Gray interjected that he would like to take this opportunity to inform -the County that theyfi'ad neglected to forward% the sub'd'ivision lot split to, the' of .Petaluma;f:or.r.eview,. and..that he would have preferred to. have commented on :the.access ways, etc., Comm. Popp moved to include' that statement in his motion.. Chair-man;Horciza referred. to. the -comment in the staff•,report- stating, if the. propertyscould become an economically sol,vent•agricultural "business -in the future -,, the - property should be rezoned to Primary Agricultural (407-ac"re minimum)'. .Mr-,. Tarr explained that °the County had indicated that-this 'property could riot be economically' - solvent. Comm. Bond stated lie .did not .feel a letter of recommendation h ld b t the ro osal since the Count had already . 'a,. s ou e sen on .p p , y proceeded with the project,. However,, he felt a letter. „�,. , should be -'sent stating, 'that the Commission was opposed to 'the fact that they 'had not,•been,offered the chance to review the project in tl e first , p'lace.. .Mr. ,Gray replied. that a letter could-be sent :stating that the .p.roje'ct was in accordance with • the City's General Plan and,Env ronmental Design Plan from : the s,taff''s point of view; but that the Planning Commission 'had'been disturbed- that the original subdivision lot split had no.t 'been referred to- `them for:. review. Comm.. Popp changed his Mdo ion accordingly,' and Comm. `Hilligoss seconded the motion. AYES 5 NOES' '0 ABSENT 2 Mr. 'Meyer: of Amalgamated `Endeavors, arriving after action on his project, asked what,.,action had been taken and if any, further information was - needed. He - was - -informed that his, project had ,been favorably considered and a letter would-be forwarded to'the.County accordingly: Comm ''Bond. •que's,til ned the'.statius of the City's spheres of influence Mr•: Gray replied-that it :had been scheduled with LAFCO. to establish spheres of influence ­in! the fall on maps. He further' advised computer system had been utilized to•estab'lish alternate spheres of influence lines to determine what;the•`spheres of influence would. look like under various 'assump't'ions;. -2- r 1 LA ,.: Planning Commission Minut *June 15, 1.976 • _ , RAL ` by Ci t•o- review the sign - amortization schedule and` consider extending the deadline= for ".amortization an additional CI'TY .COUNCILS =REFER • ' year : ... Mr. Gray referred to-the letter ftom'�the.'Chamber of Commerce re- questing that the amortization period be extended to January 17; " 19`TT, and' that 'thee - Sign -° Or be provided in a realistic '-documentfi'for:tthe •commerSid - retail merchants of the City. He y - informed _the Commission - that,; 'although the :"amortization period hid'' been `set ` - -ago; it was not''unttil approximately three months dg "o fhat 1'e had been forwarded to businesses statng-xactual •vi'olatoris -and what,needed. - to be done to correct the -violations Mr. Gray stated •that •tF e City Council at this time wished Planning -'Commiss ion they made a decision on the matter. ' Comm. Wtight'- questioned` - wha't the'° 'conf licts- were between the Zon'in g 'Ordiiianee aiid ` the City Code. 4Mr .! - Gray replied that the City Code ,Iiad' been: adopted 'in"the ^mid � 1960's and the Zoning Ordinance' iri' 1972."` The City -'Code Balls: for Use Permits for all signs, which is ''-currently not "procedure in the new Zoning Ordinance•, and . ' could therefore 'possibly 'be ,legally challenged ' .because of -•two •corif'licfng •laws clarified that the amortization'only applied -.to existing non= conforming signs, since' = all'riew signs `must cotply'to'the..'new Zoning Ordinance. He ad- ;; 'vised that'�the pur:pose•of - the amortization period was to give the owners a-�chance to`-wr`i te• off :the' cost of signs over a three year period ` Mr: Gray :'stated'he' felt• 'that ..one year was a reasonable . period.O time to complete the'study' :arid change the City Code. Mr: `Fred' ;Schram •General" Manager •of• the Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce;. informed'�the 'Commission .of the`.animosity of the busi- nes's public '•and stated =he.•did'riot'w sh to become involved in a legal battle'ibetween the'City and tlie' business merchants. He informed thesCommission'wthat'the business merchants were upset that the. ";City'd'id' not' f.ollow''through with the abatement until the 'amortization period was :up HO--then stated some- spe- cifie'instanees "of signs that would, be,d-fficult to abate. Chairman;Horc za questioned. the ° = relation to the redevelopment , process and the''amortization of`-signs. Mr: Schram replied that there.1 inoVemerit'to "secure a'similarity in signs, such as those on the Great Petaluma Mill project, as redevelopment occurs in- the' downtown area. -He felt that' in the 7 or 8 months left 'before January "•17; 1977; ',the 'busines's dommunity would agree with tl e� abat"` ' ement of .signs. 'Mr:' Schram aga_ii- expressed the need to - furnish a� 'of 'f the Sign `0rdinantb�- that' is readable to the layman:: ° - Mr:: Gray informed tYie 'Commisson.'that the •people involved in the redevelopment were talking about more stringent controls on signs in the core area, and he felt it could be accomplished without conflict with the Zoning Ordinance: -3- Planning Commiss ion .Minutes, J* 15; 1976 • `r Mr. Gray informed the Commission that Comm. ; Head had wished him to express, the <' following - thoughts An his -absence:;: l) That a sign ordinance should�be developed only "for new - =signs and not existing ones*; 2 That only -as businesses change should signs be brought into conformity; and 3) That.he was in - favor of the extension :re-quested,.. Mr:: Schram stated that the Si'gn..Users' Council had talked to the business ,in:div,,iduals= in and had ,studied the.City's existing Zoning.,Qrdinance.. '•It.had ;,b.een suggested -at that time that the citizens and' ~the City.try to York - toge:ther..to resolve their. differences:.. Comm Wright questioned -,if the business community generally was - in,favor,of cleaning. -up the community. Mr. Schram stated -that these were some •hardship ,cases involved' and that a ,lot of calls t in :resp,o'nse:to. the violation letters, had been. re- c:eived,from home offices. Mr: . Gray nf;ormed -the 'Commission .that, when the letters had been sent out three months ago to the.,property owners stating the vio,lations_, sections of the. Zoning Ordinance that were in, violation had. .been, sent - out along with the letter and -90 days had been- allotted for corrective action. He..advised that the 90 -day period was :about up, -and if the City was- to proceed, it ,would have .to be with legal-action. Comm. .Bond and Comm. Popp both stated .tleg were . in. favor of enforcing . the Sign. Ordinance,, and expressed.�their concern ,that ,further :extensions oI; -requests for variances.would • later.:result.- Mr. Gray replied that'perhap it is an indication that the -is not '.a reflection of what the community, desires -if , nnoer.ous, variances are app'li'ed ;for, and therefore some - changes,;might be necessary.; Mr.-Gray.stated his `recommendation would..be that the Commission: consider sending ; a f 'orable.comment. about extending the amortization.period to.January 17, 1977, and also to„re.commerid the City Councl,request - the staff to be very prudent ,in ,informing the merchants - -about sign 'violat,ions and following, up on., :he'- matter. -,He...further ,rec,ommended that a Sign. Task Force be set up to-include,represeintatives of the Planning Commission, City Council, business community, Chamber of Com= mercer and a member of t fie .Planning-staff. This task' force 'would make effor;t to regulate the - sign.problem and insure implemen- tation teat deadlines, are-'being met, and make• recommenda- tions, -for -changes to the sign.law that seem to be unreasonable. Comm. - Wright stated was evident -that the Commission wished to go on .record that, they,wished something to, actually happen on January -17 ;..19 7 T.- 'and . not. lj us:t . another 'time extens ion. He there- .fore moved,tYat,, the Planning Commission inform the City Council that they� "in agreement' with'the.amortiz'ation agreement ex tension January 17; 1977;'witl the „proviso that the Commission feels, s that. results- - should soon be- , evident , and also that -4- Planning Commission Minute (DJune 15, 1976 ..some ..sort .of a,.Sign, Task. Force .shou be appointed to work on the problem of,- conflicts ,between ,the City : Code and the - Zoning Ordnance,<and _to work with the, business; community on making - n . changeover - Comm.*, B'ond 3seconded .the_.moton. .AYES 5 ,NOES 0 :ABSENT Z JACK -IN -THE BOX Mr. Gray explained the' by Foodmaker, Inc. to add on a ADDITION - E.I:Q. walk -in freezer and °storage•room to the back of the existing EVALUATION &t,SITE,- rj •Jac'k- in- the Restaurant.logat,e&..At 841, East Washington Street. DESIGN REVIEW >; He informed,the Commission,that..this addition would necessitate 0 0 the removal of a specimen maple tree. Although Foodmaker, Inc., did not•w sh to remove the tree, the economics of the situation had < . proved • to , be more important., Mr, Gray - in- formed the Commis- sion;that::.two trees. „.would be planted, on the site, at least 20 feet in height., to replace .the existing tree. He also advised that the representative from'Foodmaker had called stating it was impossible for •him,. to be present -at the- meeting, and that if any further informaton,was needed, the matter should be continued until the next.smeeting. . Mr..,Grayclar fled that: the..proposal would. -not change parking requirements_; and, - ..that the, Architectural - and Site Design.Com- mttee,had not reviewed. the pro�ect since it had been the only site __desigp item on ':.the... Agenda, and had been,considered - to be minor,. The:.propos'ed ;p were then shown to the . Commission for review,a.. ;Comm.: Pop;p_moyed :to direct the:Plann ng Director to prepare and _ pos,t 4%.-Negative for the proposed addition, with the Austifi;cation ; that the two -trees •proposed to be planted replacing the.! existing : tree would ' serve.; as.. a. mitigation measure. The moton;was:s'econded ; by Comm. Bond. AYES., 5:: , . NOES 0 ABSENT,, 2 ,,. Mr Tarr• ,informed the .Commission - that ' ,_ at the• trees proposed were of slow to growth to 30 feet with a 20- foot.. spread: Comm. Bond moved.f'or approval of the.site design; the motion was seconded Comm. Hilligoss: _. ; 5 • NOES 0 _.ABSENT 2 Comm. Wright stated his -Aye was -with the proviso that the Car- rotwood be specimen trees.-.. -5 Comm. Wright moved to-rec of the proposed R-1- 20,000 District pr'e City Council. The'mo.tion was seconded by Comm. HilligoSLS. AYES 5 NOES' 0 ABSENT '2 recess -was.. ca1 at 9:02 .p.%m. and the meeting resumed, at 9:12 p.m. JUI&5, 1976 'Planning Commission Minutes, LEONARD PAUL JAY Mr. Gray-- inf or ed the Commission that' the E.I.Q. EVALUATION & leonard-Uay If or 'prezoning of apprdximately"2.9 acres located at PREZMING 76:' 10 Berger from. a County R-!-R ' District to an"R-r-1-20,000 District fiad'...be'6n the 'result -of a` request 4or an -outside water and sewer connection that had been turned down . - the City Council., The: City '.Council had suggested to 'the' owner that th e proper.ty-,.b.e,annexed and--thus receive!City welter and sewer service; He briefly explained the projec't and its location. ,. '' I Q. was opened '� m. No co 'The Pub c Hearing 'relating 'relating -to - the E `mefits the - :audience -and the Public Hearing was closed. Comm. Wright 'moved' to direct the Pldnning,-Director to prepare and'- post a The motion e was Comm. Popp.— AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT-2 Mr. Gray clarified theit many.existingareas - of R-1-20,000 zonkn&in.the City, since.it had.been recently added to the - Zbnifig• itank e' and - was - meant serve-.a-s*a transitional - use'be`tween` residential 'Land' agricultural "uses - He also clari- fied that the site would be served.by private .',road, since 'Curving . -Magnolia-Avehue to the center of'- project had pre" viously not deemed ­feasib'le­by 'the City Council. A member of the audience, informed the Commission that Gossage' Avenue - where it intersects with ,Ma is a dangerous street because•.of willows that obstruct the site distance. Mr. 'Gray - stated', -fie was not ;aware of the. situation,j but "would call - the'County Road Department; to 'inform them of the problem since it*,was jurisdiction. The owner- of -the property on which the willow trees located . informed "ttie Commission that the problem was not the willow trees, but the fact that no one obeyed the stop sign at the inter.sectlon. In response-to a question by the Mr. Jay replied that - it­mms his intent *to put four lots" on the subject property.. The - Public Hearing tel-atingt6�the prezonihg was; opened; no comments•were offered from -the�dudience -and.the Public Hearing was closed: Comm. Wright moved to-rec of the proposed R-1- 20,000 District pr'e City Council. The'mo.tion was seconded by Comm. HilligoSLS. AYES 5 NOES' 0 ABSENT '2 recess -was.. ca1 at 9:02 .p.%m. and the meeting resumed, at 9:12 p.m. • ,Planning:Commssion.Minutesoune 15; 1976 Sk DP TASK FORCE Donna MacKenzie; Vice Chairman of'the EDP Task Force Committee, OMMITTEE' �referred�-to, their June.11th report to the Commission. She PRESENTATION: briefly reviewed the" report stating recommendations of the various 'subcommittees and`justiflcations for their recommenda- tions A­map of the tesidential community'was presented to the Commission indicating the flood plain zone 'and the greenbelt. -7- Comm_. Bond stated he noticed that. in the report there was a geineral assutiption that the Residential Development Evaluation Board would -be' continued, and asked, if'that.had been a strong . feeling of, the EDP Task 'Force Committee. Ms. MacKenzie stated that., as far as she could remember, they had been fairly di -. vided on the s"sue. Mr.' Don Bennett, another member of the Committee, stated that had a very strong feeling in this regard to'retain _the Board; but the EDP Task Force Committee had.,been.told that this 'was an.area.they were not to be con - cerned.'about, 'and a group decision :ha'd'hot' been made on the matter:_ He inf ormed''the Commission that the Committee had been told not to involve itself,with imp 'ntation, but rather with what. type. of community they wanted. Mr: Gray clarified that it was the - intent that this`Comm ttee look at what the plan should be for the ne,Xt five years .in'terms - of ideals, goals, and quality_of life in.the community;..and they had been told not to worry about implementation techniques. He also stated that the Residential Development�Evaluation Board was in.4ct an imple- mentation ,te¢linique 'of. tFie Environmental Design Plan, and had not beeri 'adopted at 'the same- time as 'the EDP. Mr. Jim Grossi, another, member'- , .df . ,the. Committee, stated that the Residential Subcommitt'ee. did-get ' into 'some discussion of the Residential Development C'ont.rol 'System., but lad` never arrived`' at a .consen- sus of opinion. Mr. "Benxet,t stated''thit, although it had been I. discussed briefly, it' had been determined' that input should be .given lat when implementation techniques were discussed. Mr. Gray clarified`that an interim'p'lan f'or the Residentiai Develop- ment-Control System had' =been adopted by the City Council at this time;, since the new five -year plan would have to be eval- uated before implementation measures could be determined. „first He. explained that the interim development policy was a contin- uation . of �. the' „Residetitial'Developmeint Control System, but instead of es tab lishing.a new Residential Development Evalua- tion Board.,`it appointed the Planning Commission to -sit as the Board and "rate the developers and award directly. Mr. Gray reiterated that .this was only_an interim policy until the Commissiori'had' a chance "to look . at the new plans, with new goals policies, and to come up with new implementation procedures: Comm. Bond contended that*he felt the EDP Task Force Committee'should have been.allowed to give input.as to implementation measures and'also to make a recommendation regarding retaining the Residential Development Evaluation Board He.also felt that, since it was a- Committee of the Commission, guidelines should not;have been given to the • Committee by other than the Commission. -7- Planning Commission Minutes, 15, 1976 Comm. Wright asked for an explanation of the comments regarding urban, sprawl.. Ms.. MacKenzie stated that the intent was to dis- courage.leapfrog,development and encourage inf ill. Mr. Grossi added that the intent was also to create-some type of urban form. The: f;easblity, "of planter strips' was also discussed, and -Mr. Gray explained that it was not practical because of the need to pour a monolithic curb, gutter; and sidewalk. The EDP 'Task Foree.Committee was -commended by members of the Commission for the extensive work they had put into their review of the EDP. Comm,. Bond questioned,•the statement in the EDP Task Force Com- mittee, report that the City should have. the responsibility for providing low -cost housing.. Ms. MacKenzie replied that it 'was felt that.it should no longer be a part of the Residential De- yelopme'nt Evaluation Board process assume thi's responsibility, but rather that the City should, since- the' City, already has :a Housing, Authority ,and a Housing Assistance 'Plan. Mr. Grossi added.-that the 'Committee was' saying that the City should provide for low -cost housing, rather than the developer since it had not proven practical for the developer to do so in the past, and the City therefore needs'to look at alternate funding processes. Mr. Bennett also reiterated that the private sector has said they could not provide low -cost housing, and theref ore it would have to the responsibility of the City. Comm. Bond stated that. although he was .in agreement, he felt further verification was needed on implementation'measures to exactly.how the City was to assume .this responsibility. Mr..'Bennett replied that possibly a study session would.be,in order, since some of th'e.Committees original reports had indicated various p'ossibi- lities for pro - viding low -cost housing. Mr. Gray explained that the recommendation by the EDP Task Force Committee that low -cost housing be the responsibility of the City was different.,than what was proposed in the existing :EDP, which called for 8'- 12% low - moderate income housing to be.provided by the developer. In discussing the format of the new - plan, Mr.. Gray stated that'the goals and policies the City wishes to fol- low•would'be listed first., - with the implementation recominenda tions. following.. One of the goals',of the new plan should be housing opportunities for all economic-classes of people.in the City, and one of policies should then be that the City would use all of its,governmental ability to provide low--.: to moderate - income,housing for all residents. Mr. Gray explained that a variety of imp'lement'ation id'eag-on `low to moderate- income housing provisions should.,be °reviewed and specific,recommentation made by the Planning Commission to - the City Council for adoption. .a «' Planning Commission Mnute'sJune 15, 1976 . A discussion followed,, and it. was determined that a draft of the new,five -year plan -would be available for the second meeting of the Plannirig� Commission :in July, and that the members of the EDP Task Force would-be noti'f'ied:. Mr. Gray explained the intended format, stating that the text would be annotated every time a rec'ommendat'ion of the EDP Force Committee appeared. He also requested' the-Planning Commission to become familiar with the interim 'policy of the Residential Development Control System that had been.furnshed - them this ,evening, since they would be responsible for implementing it.. OTHER BUSINESS: Chairman Hor:ciza, on behalf of the Commission, directed the Secretary of the Planning Commission-to.-prepare a letter of appreciation ;for Mrs. Shirley A. Dobe, Planning Department Secretary, who had tendered her - resignation for June 30,.1976. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, - the meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M. t Chairman Attest::