Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/17/1976A G:. ,E N Z ..A PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION August 1T, 1976 REGULAR= MEETING 7:30,.-P.M... CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY -HALL : Petaluma, California The Planning Commission encourages applicants or their representatives to-be available�at- •the-•meetings�- ,to-an_swer questions;; so that, no agenda-items need be deferred to a.later date due. , a- =lack of�pertin'ent information. PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE ROLL CALL :. Comm. _.Bond ; Head Harberson - Horciza . , Popp Waters Wright STAFF: Ronald F. Hall,.Planning Director APPROVAL;OF MINUTES: CORRESPONDENCE: SONOMA COUNTY REFERRALS:. PETALUMA FARMS -Draft E.I,..R...regarding application for a change: fr.om=_the- existing. A -1 (primary agri- cultural).:and A- 2•(secondary agriculture) district zones to a..P.0 (Planned.. Community) ..District or any ,other -, district zone which_ -will allow mixed..residential, commercial, and Iimited .industrial on approximately acres, to be located on the east and west sides of U.S. 101 about 1 mile south of Railroad Avenue. JOSEP.R.EAQUINTO Request for a private street to•p "rovide access to two lots Private street of a proposed three -lot ^parcel map located at 800 Bodega request - 800 Bodega Avenue. Avenue: ROBERT D. BERNSTEIN Hearing evaluate the Environmental Impact Questionnaire E'.I.Q. Evaluation of submitted for a proposed 15 -lot subdivision to be located Tentative.Map = on E1m.brive between�West St ' reet•and :Schuman Lane. HOLIDAY ESTATES ,SUBDIVISION. GARY STOKES 1•. Hearing to :evaluate the Environmental Impact of pro - E.I.Q. Evaluation o posed from•PUD•to R- C- , Residential. Rezoning :to R -C, Compact Residential,- and Tentative 2;. Public Hearing to consider rezoning application Map for Casa de Arroyo by Gary Stokes rezone approximately 9 acres located Unit #1 on Lakeville Highway near Casa Grande and the future • extension of South McDowell Blvd, from PUD (Planned Unit) District to R- C Residential) District. 3. Consideratioti of the Tentative Map for a 23- duplex lost subdivision.... ry GARY STOKES " = I Hearing to: evaluate the Impac =t'of pro - E.I -.Q'.. Evaluation of posed r- ezoning.. PUD •to• R -1- 6500.. Rezoning to .R 1`- "6'500.. s . ... and Tentative `Map for:' '' 2„ ' - Pub1ic•?H6arin`g to3zonsider'�.the re ion . Casa° de Arroyo Unit "'" ` by= Stokes =to -rezone. approximately" 33- #2 acres from PUD ,lanned; Unit) District. to R -1 -650,0 (One- Family 'Resid'ential,) loca -ted on Lakeville Highway , and' Frates :Road: 3. Consideration of the.;Tentative Map;'for 12;6 :single family lots.. LARRY ,LACEY '1..' Public Hearing - to .evaluate the; Impact E.I.;Q:. Evaluation/ Questionnaire for a family fun'center°"to "be.. located at USE PERMIT - 1422 East,Wash'ington Street in the Washington Square WASHINGTON' SQUARE. Shopping, Center SHOPPING' CENTER 1422 Y. Washington St. 2., Public Hearing' to, consider the Use Permit 'of Lar Lacey ,to allow a,family fun center in-the ,, Washingto,n Square Shopping Center. ADJOURNMENT: M I N U't t''S PETALUMA CITY `PLANNING COMT AUGUST 17, 1976 i REGUL AR LAR MEETING - 7:30 P.M. CITY - COUNC IL C11AMBERS I " CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRE SENT.':' Comm. Bond, Head*' 11arbe'rson Horciza, Popp *(Left meeting . ,at, 10: 30, pm.) ABSENT: comm. Waters, Wright, STAFF: Hall,,,Planping Diiecto''r APPROVAL'OF MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of August 3, 1976, were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE: Central. Sonoma. County Density Transfer Project •e H 1 iftfdrmed the Commis sioners port:. 'Mr. al that"a , letter" h`dd been, received. from the Sonoma County "Plannin'g Department regarding the pre senf9tion of the Central Sonoma County Density T . r f e r . P r 0j d c t Report, prepared by Sedway/ brban & Environmental Planners & Designers of San Frah6isco-to be held' in the Board of Superyisors..Chambers on_Augubt 30 at 3:00 p.m. Mr,. Hall. stated.. he planned on attending the - presentation and eport back to the 3. - Planning Commissio I n I aria city council. It was suggested that Commissioners.also attend if" - Letter to. Councilman Pa tricia M. Hilligoss:', - C. A letter to ' Cou . ncilmaft - - Ratri'cia M. Hilligoss from,�Ehe Plan ng s. .' expressing apprecialtio I n.for services rendered as Planning Commissioner was read.. _'Peropo bed. , Reso l ution to Planning Commission Rules and Regulations: Commissioner Harberson moved that an amendment be added to the Planning - .,.Commission Rules :& Regulations for the transition I of business by adding.Sec ion 511 thereto re- . garding the 'introduction- of resolutions so that only. the. signature. of the Chairman be required and-the names ` m over of the and second be noted in the I m . inutes-and resolution. The motion was -seconded,by Comm. 'Popp.- AYES. 5 NOES'.' 0 ABSENT 2 9, 4 Petaluma - Citty:Planning- Commission Minutes August 17, 1976 PETALUMA FARMS :Mr.. Hall e xplained`tliat an -E.I.R,. Referral had been SONOMA COUNTY received from Sonoma County concerning the REFERRAL re•zonngnappl_caton'' for , the proposed '-,Petaluma-Farms, Development. The development. comprises 1., °ac,res and is located "n' the north Petaluma are A :between Rohnert Park- Cotati- Penngrove to the northeast and the City of Petalum -a - to the =south. Mr. Hall informed the Commission the E .I. R -. Report had been prepared by • Elgar Hill �& Associates for the 'Petaluma Farms Development and had drawn considerable interest'in the County. At the City Council Meeting, of August 16, 1976, the.-City Council. opposed the development of the •.Petaluma: Farms. and found the Environmental 'Imp act• to be inadequate and urged - the County to rej,e the proposed development by i- ••-;Resolution #1493 N.C.5. Mr. Hall ` stated that because of a time element ' problem; a response, was to be made to the 'Sonoma County Planning -Department by_ August 23- 19 The Cty 'Council made their- comments. and , recommendation' on the. Draft E.I ,R:: -,:and in turn, directed the ' Planning' Comm s;s •on to make their recommendation based 'on specific findings. ;I ­Mr. Hall stated that the proposed development is not in conformity with the Petaluma Envi-ron- .mental.Design Plan General Plan. Such a' -.development.would.be a disruption of major agricultural areas - the north and east of Petaluma. A d eve lopment of - this. magnitude in the heart of'the'agrcultural area would have the effect as that which occurred .in the ..Santa Cl:ar.a Valley.. Petaluma would like to ; •,the • integrity 'of- the city with agri- ..cultural land, separating it from other cities. resolution 47493 N.C'..S. was read in its entirety by Mr. Hall. Comm. Harberson requested that Resolution''4749:3 N.C.S. be included as a part of the• minutes. Comm.' Head questioned :Item- 3 of .Resolution #'749.3 'N. C. S .', 'as to what signi- ficant adverse effects 'the development would have upon the City c'f`Pe'taluma�. Comm. Harberson explained the effects would relate to water supply and sewer facilities capable of accommo- dating the development. The initial intention -2- �.._.. 77 ,_ Petaluma City P'lanning Commission Miriutes August. 17, 1976 of "the. ddvelopment� .ls `to ..util "ize ground uaater, but ' the development .wou1'd eventually have to tap i}nto' -the Petaluma"'swate•r--system,;. 'the develop - menu "would :generate ..more traffic into the area; smog:.probVlems "would .'be _•created by a development .thi size; "arid, further,, - the developer intends to "event:'ually''- , annex: to the City of Petaluma. Mj: .`Il.all_,., 'tha.t `tthis development would also lie w thin-:.the Petaluma' Hospital District. Comm'::- Horciza. stated , that the Task Force - Committee' -he had .previously .served on, had expressed concern with:leap'f'rog developments; the impact these 'developments would have on :roads :arid `other facilities in the area. 'Comm.= Harberson °questioned °the adequacy of the .. 'Environmental 'Impact.Report. Comm. - Iead stated that since the Planning Commi- ssioners, had riot.: read the E . I. R. they could not comment'on the inadegza'cy of the report. Mr. fIall explained ..that, the City did not receive sufficient-copies of the E.I.R. for d istribution to the Planning Commissioners. Comm. Head- moved -=that .thee F- fanning Commission oppose the.Petaluma Farms, Development but is ® -in agreement .with .the findings of the City Council Resolbition 17493 N.C.S. The motion was dropped for lack of.a• second Comm. Bond­ 'he could,not make a decision on 'the E '. I R. as=the Commission had not received or read the report.- He •was -disturbed that the material.. to. be reviewed was' received from SonomaCounty too late to be considered by 'the Commis s'ion . Comm. - Harberson requested that copies of the be .circulated to the Planning Commissioners for . review and a special, Planning Commission Meeting be held on Tuesday, August 24, 1976,,, to review , the E I R.. ,and their .findings be- reported 'to' the Sonoma County, Planning Department. Mr.. Hall stated" that a letter would be` sent. to' the County- P'lahning -'Department stating comments would be forthcoming from the City of Petaluma; The'Public'Ilearing was opened to consider the Petaluma Farms D6velopment. Mk.i David Runey, a resident of the area, stated that this is an annual flood plain area and the property drains into the headwaters of the Petaluma River. The Public Hearing was closed. -3- Petaluma - City. 'Planning Cormnission Minutes August 17, 191,76 JOSEPH EAQUINTO Mr. Hall explained that a request head, -been PRIVATE..-';ST * REET", for a private� street to pro- REQUEST-8.010 BODEGA. '.-' ;vidO lots s-of a proposled three AVENUE..- 1.0%t°- patce_I -map located at 8_:00 Bodeg,a Avenue. S-ince there, is no addpted street plan for th the most-logical development - of the land- wouIld be to allow a private street to serve .-Lots --2 and .3, of the "proposed lot split-,. The -applicant. would, be required to submit a develop- ment. plan -showing.ali width, grade' - and material specifications for the proposed 20-foot wide private street along tjlje. topography and means. of. access- to each lot; and the applicant would also be required. to, enlarge. the proposed 30-foot easement the event a public street , is required for - . thig area in the' future. c Comti,.-Bond questioned whether o to • g-rant or maintaij Mr. stated that the City 'Private st-ree,ts and would not constructed according to City di d e' i datod to the city. the:City would be 'i, - a private street. does hot maintai . unless they are standards and- Comm. Bond moved to for a twenty (20)' 'foot wide prd street for access to the proposed-developmen't located.at, HO Bodega Avenue•., He also included in the motion* tha there- should,be a fifty (5.0) foot wide.access e ' easem nt unless it, is found, that a 'twenty ('20).' foot wide access easement has' already been recorded . over the lots to the west of the sub- j6ct-property. If such 'an easement, e the City 'would :require only a thirty (30) foot wide access easement to be recorded over the•"..' subject p;rQpe The motion was seconded by Comm. Head., AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 .,ROBERT D. BERNSTEIN Mr. Hall explained that the proposed sub- E.I.Q EVALUATION,, division property is located on the west and OF TENTATIVE MAP ­­east of Elm Street - Extension between S'chuman 110 ESTATES Lane and, West Street._ The existing zoning is SUBDIVISION' and does not conform to the General 'Plan or Environ.mentaLQps Plan density I requirements of the surrounding residential:-, area.. The property lies on, the side of a steep and moderately steep hill.w-ith slopes of between: -4- T' 11 Petaluma City: • Planning-'. Commission. Tlinutes August-17, 1976 10•and 25 percent.respectively. The south side of" proposed cu]: 'de -,sad: would have a 15 per - ­''�cent; s in.pavemen,t:.and .the south side of Elm Court i:st expected :to have a 10.6 percent grade. P.ir.•. Hall stated that the soils investigation :.-repo ±t should be provided to -substantiate the adequacy. of. these soils to withstand the eon - struction.­of custom on steep and moderately .s.teep s,lopeq_ This analysis would also protect the existing homes.which''back on or- border this 4.7 acre site ;which could be affected by the results of the develop- ment. Mr. Hall-added-that a soils and hydraulic analy?sis report should be a requirement of the R.I.Q. evaluation. Comm. stated that Schuman Lane already has, water problems and agreed that the applicant should be required-to furnish .soils and hydraulic analysis reports for the project. Jon .Anderson of MacKay &,Somps stated that a soi.ls,and hydraulic analysis will be furnished and is a prerequisite of-the map approval by the City Engineer. Comm, ,Popp moved to direct. the Planning Director to prepare and post a'Negati.ve Declaration contingent upon the preparation of a soils and hydraulic analysis report ..for the lots to be served by. the cul -de -sac; The motion was seconded by Comm. Harbergon,. . AYES: 5. _ NOES 0 A$SENT 2 CASA DE ARROYO #1 'the,r,ezon ng application: submitted by Gary Stokes E. I.Q. EVALUATION to rezone a.9 °acre parcel located between OF NING TO R =C Lakeville H ghway•,.the future South McDowell COMPACT RESIDENTIAL'; Blvd,. Extension and Casa Grande. Road from a` & TENTATIVE MAP Planned,-U ' nit Distr-ict,to a Compact Residential GARY STOKES.: District 'o construct .a 23- duplex lot subdi` vision was reviewed. ,The public hearing was.ope_ned to consider the Environmental Impact Questionnaire. No comments were offered _ from the- audience and the public hearing was closed. • -5- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 19'°6 - Comm. Bond moved, to dirept, thb Planning Director to prppa . re and . pt . os . a . Nega - ti;vei Declaration for the project.. The mot 'on 'cidii seconded by Comrd. . Head. AYES .5 NO 0 ABSENT 2 The public h - opened to consider the proposed R-C, Compact Residential, Rezoning application- No comments were offered from the audience.and'thepubl public hearing was closed. Comm.. Bond moved to recommend approval of the requested R-C 'rezoning to 'the City Council with the spec ific findInss: as stated in Exhibit "B". -The motion was seconded by Comm. Harberson. AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 The 13 conditions Of thd staf report relat to the Tentative Map 0 the pr6p4:5sed, 23-duplex. lot subdivision were d sctsg&do Mr. Hall ex- p1ained that the' rainage and � , - flood control design for _thepro subdivision -:must 'conform to the Sonoma Count:"!, ater Agenp_y"6 design hi"l p criteria and the drainage lanswd"l be reviewed by CALTRANS CAITkANS also requested there be a buffer area establithe& between' the subdivision and Lakeville Highway. Gary Stokes questioned, Item 13-reldt-ih4 to th e requirement that.'heaVy landscaping. and an' irrigation' syst'em'be. installed Within the 2-5-foot area between the Lakeville Highway right-of-way-:and the, 6-foot high fdnce:., He, asked what type of landscaping is considered. "heavy"' and'if lawns and shrubs are considetipd "heavy" landscaping; who would. be responsible for the maintenance.. Comm,. Harberson stated the. conjunction with ihe-­ developer should work in *o* staff on -the t e.,,.of: landscaping to be 'used � Y, p 'vand because of,; problems,j.-lawns.'and , shrubs -should ...not be .considered as a landscape requirement. Comm. Harber . so, , n moved to recommend approval . of - the TentatiVe<.- Map , .. for the - Casa de Arroyo #1 Subdivision '..to,..,th.e.-City ... Council with the f ollow- .ing change t,q_the�conditions of approval as,, . z a M. Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes August 17, 1976 recommended in the staff report. 1. Delete they word° "Yieavy" and modify condi- t -on 413 of 'the Pl'ann'ing staff report to re f lect` - that the subc7 iwider shall work in`conj •w.ith--the City staff on the proper landscapi of. the 25 -foot area be- - -the! Lakeville Highway. right -of -way afid the ' 6 -foot high fence vaiich is on a rolled ' berm; and that'lawns and shrubs a not ` a re 'u rement . The motion was seconded =`by .Comm. Popp. AYES 5 NOES 0' ABSENT 2 Comm. Head left the 'meeting at this time. CAS'A DE ARROYO #2 Mr; Mall explained that a rezo;nirg.application E.I.Q. EVALUATION OF had been received from Gary Stokes to rezone REZONING­TO R-1-6,50b. approximately'`33 a located between Casa. r & TENTATIVE MAP Grande Road- Soutli'ZcDowell Extensions Old GARY STOKES: Lakeville Highway' Arid Lakeville Highway from PUD, 'Planned"Unit,District, to R -1 -6,500 Single- fami.ly,Residential; to construct a 126­10't s.ubdivisiori . • The'publie hearing opened to consider the Environmental Impact Questionnaire. No comments were offered from the. au`dience and the public - hearing was closed. Comm, Bond moved to direct the Planning Director to prepare' and post a 'Negative Declaration for the pro'- j.ec "t. The motion ;was seconded by Comm. Popp. AYES 4 NOES 0, ABSENT 3 A discussion was held on the rezoning'appli- cation submitted by Gary Stokes to rezone 3 3--acres from; - PUD to .R' =1 6,500. Jon Anderson ..... _ of MacKay & Somps indicated that Adobe Creek will 'be relocated 'froin.its natural course and placed, iri a 11 foot wide channel to extend from Ol�d,Lakevil e'Road to Lakeville Highway. Tie's'ite has substantial drainage problems which would'be' brought up to'the standards of the Sonoma County.Water Agency in order to provide -7- Petaluma City Planning Commiss August 1976 , adequate . pro.tection, - from.',flood hazards. He added that .the ,run -off -water from the proposed ,proper-ty. cannot-,,be dr,a hed directly into Adobe Creek and,�,an ,underground storm drain will be constructed . under Lakeville Highway. The public, hearing,. was opened to ,consider the proposed R -1- 6,5.00, Rezoning. No comments were of :feredrfrom. the audience and the public hear ing •was closed. . Comm.. Popp >moved to .recommend, approval of the - requested R 1= 6,50,0, Single-family Residential ,=° , : r ezo n i ng.,: to the City Council with the specific findings as stated in' Exhibit "B ". The motion :. , .aas seconded by Comm.. Harberson . 0 AYE 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3 The twenty -- three :conditions of. approval for the aefor the. proposed 1,26 lot subdivision were reviewed. Gar —S okes expressed concern on the requiremerits of Item_ 14,,. 17 and .13 of the staff. report. He 'questioned if lawns and.shrubs were considered ��heavy" landscaping and who is responsible for the maintenance of this type o.f planting. -•• Harberson stated ,thati` lawns and shrubs should• not..be cons, de,red. under""" "heavy" land scraping and the developer should work with the staff on the type of trees or plantings;, for the . area\ Mr. Stokes stated, that the Environmental Impact • requirements had been met with the"..110;m-. foot wide open space landscaped channel and he ther ° L.fore should not b.e :%equired to provide. and maintain a park. He questioned if the - bicycl` ; path,,alontg the 110 - foot wide channel is feasibly:. Mr'. Stokes questioned the,,re that p" tions of; Lots 39 and 49 all of Lots 25; 4.0 thru:A7, are to be replaced by' a strip park and dedicated. to, the City •. 'i . e . 15% of the property, is .to. be dedicated as a strip parkor Mr., Stokes felt that the, {110 -foot open space landscaped channel;' should. be. sufficient for, park dedication. Comm. ftarherson stated he would like .:to ' see. a, not °ghborhood park in the triangle section of "the property, similar to Miwok and.. LaTerce'ra Parks. -,0 -. 'Petaluma City Planniiiq`"'C M"irru es'. August -17 1976 Comm`. -b6nid-iriovdd fb'-± approval of the "de Arroyo #2 Subdivision I'Ve ''Map f o r" C-as a Te n'tat to the L- 'City -t Council • following changes "f '"approval as recommended to -the'.,cond.-1-ti6ns`o' . by ;:- P la*nn' n g staff 1., DbIe te the `work heavy from Condition 14. d ify'd'ondItion` 'of' the Planning staff re p or t - to read tliat� '�if the existing well located near the intersection of proposed - Casa:.de - Arroyo "Drive -and Stokes Avenue .,meets-with the' of the Director, i , t he subdivider shall of�zWater Utili!ties -t--1 dedicate 'the existing -well to the City and an access easement should be provided to the Well. 3. 'Modify condition 1.8 - to reflect that the subdivider slialle'be responsible for the 'dedication of park- Iand, or an in lieu Par-k--,fee, 'and the developer shall discuss with the Recreation .-Director the location � o f, * --the.park and lot§* to be dedicated for a'--park site. - The` motioft'wds seconded by Comm. Harberson. AYES 4.. NO ES '. ABSENT 3 LARRY LACEY E.I.Q.•EVALUATION/ USE PERMIT Mr. Hlallexplai-ried:the request by Larry Lacey to allow for. the development of a family fun center in the Washington Square Shopping Center. Then •bui will have a small storage and equipment r6pair.room, and a mechanical and. electrical game room area, and is in a C-C, ,.zCe ' ntral Commercial, District. The en- vironmental considerations were then reviewed. The Public hearing relating to the Environmental Impact Questionnaire was opened. It was reported that.kbrsi Judy Barrett, 1420 Laure had telephoned the office and stated she was opposed to the Fun Center be- -cause of potential juveni.le delinquency. Margaret Delgado, arresident of the area, stated that a,development such as the Family Fun Center would induce problems of noise, loitering and vandalism. She expressed.c0ncern that the location was in a narrow, not well lit, alleyway and within 100 feet of an established bar. -9- Petaluma: Ci:-ty P..lanning Commission,' Minutes, -August: 17 1.9.76 h�r: stated,that most, of the Center's bus: :s• would.., be after 7 :00 p .m. and there should; -be no more than. X25• or 30 persons attending the center. at ,one; time. The age group would range. -fromt 8 , „to, 2.5';.years. • `there would be :approximately `30 pieces of electronic equipment at the eenter,..= He :added that the tenants of' the * Washington 'Square Shopping Center ''.had been contacted-and:', they bad. . no , objection, to the center. The public hearing was closed. Comm. - Harberson moved - direct the Planning Director to prepare_ and post a Negative De - clarat'on _for the project. The motion was seconded -- by Comm._ ,Popp AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3 The. public.:hearng relating to the Permit was o.pened Comm. Bond stated that _f the Use Perm lit. is granted the center should be .. checked. periodically as there is a potentia -1 for this type of 'business to get out of hand. Mrs-Delgado - questioned when 'was the last time a Use Permit -had been revoked in Petaluma. Comm. ,Bond ;stated that to his knowledge there had been no occasion to ;revoke a Use Permit some perhaps were threatened, but none had •' been . revoked. Mr. Hall suggested that °a -time' limitation could be stipulat - ed in connection with granting the'. Use Permit 'The, public hearing Was - . - closed. ` Comm. Popp;mOved.to grant the Use Permit with the following addition to..the conditions of approval as recommended :by the Planning staff: 1.,' The Use : - .Permit to be . renewed, wi.than six months. The -motion. was.--seconded by Comm. Harberson.� AYES 4 _NOES. 0 ABSENT 3 ADJOURNMENT: There:..4ping no. further business, the meeting adjourned at 11 :55 p:.m. Attest: ---� Chairman -10-