Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/21/1976PETAL CITY•_PLANNING COMMYSSI -, " ri DECEMBER 21, 19 REGULAR. MEETING;' 7,c'30 E'.M ". CITY COUNG +IL CHAMBERS,- :CITY HALL?: P.,;ETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm. Bond, Head Popp, Waters, Wright* ( *excused 9:115 p'.m. ) ABSENT:' Comm:,,-Harberson i . STAFF:: Ronald.. F. Hall.; 'Planning :Director: Wayne 'P'.-Rasmussen. Assistant Planner • . r APPROVAL OF ,MINUTES ,, , ,;The 'minutes of December; 7; 19.7:6 '.were approved as, sub- j mit,ted KAISER;AETNA _° Mr: Hall rexpla "fined, fhe ,proposal by. •.Wesley fep -. (Wesley ,Bailey) -- a ::_resenting "rK#iser Aetna ;to rezone twenty acres of land _ E _ . _. y • I.Q: ��EUALUATION /;, •,; located at the - northerl - u'corner of .,Ely Road and .East REVIEW REZONIN(;,; j Washington, Street from PUD(Planned Unit) Distr,idt, FROM PUD,' TO •R -1- 6;500 °;, 200',Mults amily ts to R 14,•500; (Single- Family z17 -76: " Resid`ential) q • further ex lamed 'the area avast mini tinde sag - ;He.' 6 500 .s uare foo_ :`p surrounded by agri ul- C pp y , four. o£ land riah'theast.,of ..the subj ect prop erty Ct for ..future reenb_elt, use. - The Washington Y - g x Greek, divid`es,: the• - - .prosper- ty is, presently! hydraul' cahhy inadequate for subdivision ; '- developmen'.t' 'without improvement of this condition the sit:e •.. an .exp,ected to be,,. su b ­ to frequent hooding .Reconstruction of the creek d. some realignment to.. accommodate the layout o,f.the' lot Arid street design will be necessary. Mr ; ;Hall.jnf''t ed• - the Commission•, that ;only the rezoning' f?or the project.was to be. considered., _ P b ', P Question- The; public hearing was o ened! to consider the Environmentah Im pa c t nalte Mr.- , John Ba- l:shaw stated , :if this parcel J s ,rezoned, to R- 1- 6;5.00 it .wil' p • ,: on :E1.y .Blvd. and E .Washington o en env,•ronmental. avenues of tr affic - impact Street; ,iioxse elements due to clgse ; pr- oximity of ,,the airport and flooding :from the Washington Creek channel,..- Mr. Ernest Curtis stated the. natural course of _ the _c hannel•,should',be..maintained trees should be;. removed from. the ch -a" nel area, ':but retained,.along,-Ely= Road.. ; :If. proper planning:_is ,provided •for the. devexlo,pment,, i , it should be ,an , acceptable o J r ' ect., The•.public •.hearing was PL , _. closed. - • . _ ` • _ . ;` _ Comm Head u „estioned cbmmen;ts•by the-Sonoma Water ro osed:, ro Ageney that the q _ p, • ,p, p j,;ect will necessitate -of of..the creek Comm. Horciza stated that as a part, of the' Master, Plan the entire Washington, Creek channel,- to Old Adobe Road - would be rechanneled. This rechan neling will take place whether this pr•ojiect i_s, "permitted -or. not.. _ Comm.,- Wrigh' t sta;t_ed that to his ki owled'ge-,th'ere had not Jbe'en.any.,flooding, in this area..., MacKay & s5oinps,,, s tated <Wa9hing ; ton Cre would' be wou be realigned, as shown on the old -Alder-. .wood Subdi.vis'ion- map which indicated restric1ti6ns, of .t'he ••Washington Creek ch=annel,' rand- �these:plans,,wer.e app roved •,by the City. xe. added the appear•snc:e of the creek, would: •remain in its ;natural 'state-` a: rock material.:would' be placed at the ,bot.tom' o'f the. channel and= a. drop structure would be :placed at ti=e top of the channel -2'-. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES,, ',DECEMBER 21„ 19.7'6: KAISER -AETNA Comm Bond sta't`ed'`'that due" to the close „proximi t,y of (Wesley, :Bailey)- the airport.a noise barrier factor should be provided, E.I,.Q. EVALUATION'/ ' for •the prodec't. Wes Bailey' stated additional i:nsi - REVIEW OF REZONING lation would, be 'provid'ed ' in homes' located'. near the ” FROM ;PUD TOR airport,., ° He added; a sound study ' had lieen made for Z1T -T6; the ',develo,pment and a, noise report of the Petaluma, (Continued) • ': Airport- had b'e'en, submitted,. Comm.. Horciz'a' questioned if a conventional PUD would be advisable f. or Ithis size' parcel_:. Mr., Hall explained the proposed property leans toward 'A ',PUD zoning because of the site, characteristics ;. ` Comm, Popp moved to d r,ect .the'Plannirig Di'r:ettor 'to prepa_r• and. post: a Neg- ative D'eclara ;tion: for :the. prod ;ect ; : ;,, The motion, was by. Conm._`Waters... AYES' 6 ?NOES 10,. : ABSEN,T 1 .. The 'Public : Heariiig was. Opened' to', the„ proposed: R -.1 -6, 500. rezoriin'g.. I Mr. ' Ernest burti:s started the creek has not" fl'ooded..sinte' 'the 193W s'r and ;since„ that time the' chaiine'l has been w d "erred ;from Ely' Ad And there has been no in- di'.cation' of 'flooding; He °added .a `'study is: madei• ;of, 'the Sonoma :M©untAin- agricultural land, encgmpass ng 42_,000.4acres 'The••land is, not considered prime' agricultural 'land, "particularly° the land,- situated from ,th& :8orioma Mountains to North McDowell near the' �Lyri'ch''Creek area.: Comm Bond stated the development plans previously•'submtted for'this to cation; low and moderate income Housing had' been; "proposed. Mr: tBaishaw'stated. the creek did flood. in 972�`T&hd 1973: `It vas the intent when. the 'Environmental Design Plan was adopted; , t'ha -t' `lower:' income housing would be , -provided..' Jf this, property is r'ezon'ed, the City s� ;.raga nst :the original, intent of the"`•E,. ;D.P: in that -a= Planned, -Unit D.evelopmeri `•was• palanned' for,. this 'area where 'low `income: housing wouT'diti'e .provided,. -' the Publi,c'-.Hear,ing -,was closed: "Wes Bailey explained that' towrihouses have been .a 'financial, d•isaster in every ' c'ominunity,he 'h'as been involved in:.­. The: land is ;'`v:ery costly to improve, but, in. single `family` `ho:using 'develo,pmentl,s co'st's can - more readily be recouped. The market; ;calls' for, single= family housing, 'not' t Comm •'Bond? questioned if there 'was•ja, c.os't mixture -in':this development;.'. Mr,, Barley. sta :the. cost' 'of` -the home s' - would "�var'y"-f ;nom :$6 $7,000 based on the s ze''and` number of; rooms t "Comm.. "Bo'nd.' stated ha hbi es •in' `the proposed. •d`e =. velopment` should then be ;considered for 'families- _in the mod,erAte; and high income bracket. '` Comm'.` Head questioned the •differrence 'in; construct 'ofi ,coasts of townhouses' 4-n lieu of s'ingl'e - family 'homes. ' Mr.- :Bailey -stat`ed • tha't town - housEs are constructed at a lower' colst, 'du to the common w st-r but, there is merit and. demerit on - t'ownhouse'-proj ec.ts with the; added 'costs ;: 'of "pools, amenities and " "the esfablislment'''of home owners :associ;at`ion,and: also''_ that peop'1e 'ar.e o :rien'ted t'o''single- family housing. Comm: ''Head moved that ;zonings fof= the_ property remain'L P.UD : unti -1,, an accep,,tab'le proposal fox the, property -s propo'sedT The, Motion failed- for lack of a se coed.'. Comm. Bond stated the Commission las art obligation' under the E', D: P:' .a• commit- meet in the p`ro;per drainage `of the Washington Creek. channel and:= to p lows cost' housing, - bu :t. asked if these goals ;could 'Ee..accomplished ' if a developer fox financial reasons cannot "fu.1fi11 ;this commitment. 'The property should 1.e, zoned PUD as' t _meets, the letter of the'E,.D P..,,'.but='there is a ,moxal value as well as -2'-. - 'PLANNING; COMMISSION .MINUTES' „,, .DECEMBER •'21, `1976; KAISER AETNA a financial obligation) to be consid'ered'.' He uest`oned (Wesle . mmiss'on should abide: by the E 'D P.:documents y Y Q Baffle. ON /'; ' or if zoning could be. changed because of'•changing E.I EVALUATI � REV(I'EV,'OF REZONING ?ti.mes and `. °financial. conditions. Mr: Hall explained FROM P -UD TO R -1 -.6.; 50,0 that: by the present market standard's; "these° homes .:could Zl,T -76 "_ riot be coriside`r';ed by' people working in the Petaluma.'area t (Continued)''- who . °are in` the low -income; °bracket,, brut, would more than likely' be< p .by .Bay Area commciters who are in the °upper come - 'br acket 'There is ran obligation to people who work .insi'd'e the city and are in a lower income rac et :. Cornni. Horciza stated that when the E D:'P is reviewed 'by the ' 6 on, smaller scale developments should be'considered. A ',t'evie*w , of t he­ eeonomics we 11 a`s the aesthetics of a pro, ect should be made This is a problem that should be re'sol�ied... Comm:. 'Popp,,stated' the cost `to i_evelop'thesE. lot_s'wopld range •from I , , 5 ` , 00 0 to :2;00 and n`this,ca'se �a can :low cost.'.h ®usi -n -lien me'marie avail $1, '$ 00; ho able I`It, is not feasible t'o "abide by' the "original plansand' 'the •'longer a - project is delay e'd'. the 'higher., :pric'es go': ; - Comm. Horciza moored to'• recommend approval 6. `the requested` R 1=b; 500 rezoning 'to the`' City Council., the'mot'ion� was `seconded by Comm Popp AYES 4' NOES,:` Z ABSENT 1 JAMES MAESTRETTI'FOK Mr Hall - 'explained 'the •re ,quest by James Ma'estretti, MARGARET SCHONBECK/ repr.esenting'Marga -ret Scholenbecl or a three lot E:,I -Q' ,EVALUATION /. sp .and .'mod fication the" Subdivision' Ordinance' MODIFICATION `TO.SUB­ No. 1 '046'. The proposed three lots have lot "widths,:., DIUISI©N ORDINANCE: of - less than .65, £eet and one:. lot 'with° an exs ing;..' house has a sideyard,;:setback.,of, zero feet, where five, feet is required. 'The :pr,oposed lot 'split would °resurt- ti in 'two 5 additonal' b,50O. square feet 1'o:ts° on t'he' near,• portion of' the parcel which• would- be served -by a 2.0-foot. wide private street: :Mr. r-iall'.stdted that id_'eally, "C "'Str'eet should' b_ - e extended to= allow, for •devel- opme t o:f a 7 a'1 tleast fave,.addtion parcels,•" t 4 The,. Publ:tc Hed±,id was opened, to consider the Env,ironemntal Impact Questionnaire., Ja'c'k St Mar't'in -stated "this proposal was' perhap's' ,the best ruse .for the property, but 'he- `could no econbmica] ly ,acc'ept the proposal_ that "C" 'Str`,eet be :extended through to Eighth 'Street; 'The' Public Hear i'ng.was closed -.,- ”. mm Head move' Co` d to ;direct . the Planning Di- rector: <ta pr and a Negati'ue. Declaration-for the .project 'The motion was seconded by Comm P6pp'. AYES' °6 NQE& 0 -. ABSENT 1 Comm: Horciza questio' n'edf - ik. - i't we're a = requirement' that turnaroundis b'e pr-ovided for` f ipe - equipment., or in som&'czses could' equipment'., back* out of a cul -de -sac? Mr. Hall explained that' on,''shbrt cul' d sacs', fire equipment backs out of the -B� PLANNING' COMMIS'S,ION 'MINUTES:, 'DECEMBER .21, 1926 JAMES MAESTRETTI!FOR. property. Comm Horci.za,'questioned if the proposed, MARGARET.SCH_ONBEC &' /- modification applied only, to this project or would R.1 Q.. ,EVALUATION, / - - a precedent'„ be set for other projects. Mr.. Hall MODIFICATION TO 'S,UB'- r explained.;that' the. modif cation would .,apply .only. DIVISION' ORDINANCE to ;this project and °no' p,reced "ent would be estab (Continued) fished. Comm. Pgpp s.ta,ted a cul -de= sac "had been required .when`Morning 'Sun' Drive wa's constructed,, but" the 'turnaround movement alas not adequate or suf;f'icient; - this p'ropgsal is only f'or ,':a driveway 'to ;:serve two lot-s., 'Bob McClure 16' Eighth Street, stated his; lot parallels Lot 3.. He has a driveway 12-foot wide and, ,had considered. the p.ossibil'ity -of a lot split for his •property', but - could riot meet .the, Z'5-foot driveway ;r'equ_irements. He added he would not like :to s.ee a 'two story home omebult.ori Lot Comm. Vi:,ight., s,tat ed the applicant wa over= constructing „this parcel, of Land.. Comm. Head, •requested the, City Planner-'- to ,read. the r;eq.uirements f , , or , < a variance,. Mr: Hall ,stated. request' 'was %pr a modifacatign to the, .Subdiv'ision Ordinance.: Th "e Subdivision Ordinance, .adheres to. ahe Zoning apecf.ies the;• q, ' ro owners. haHowe_ver s csn his land are YOU that , setback re uirements'. pp_ different from other :p • p y , y y granting special consideration to this applicant without giving; consideration ,to.ne ghboring property owner.s..,.'Comm.. Head.. st'at'ed according, ;to the Zoning Ordinance,we can- ,not grant - variances; -on. conditions; .that.'Are not - unique to the property. Comm,. Popp stated this ; is:. an existing ; piece ,of , property and there are similar . sit uatioi s` udh :as `'tki s'sw,ithiri :'the 'City;, ;and any resident has' the - right to. ,apply for a .variance on, exis;tin g p arcels of land Neighboring ,p;roperties would",;be;, given the same consideration as the applicant. This,., is an,old neighb'orhood. and p_eople.. have ,a right to develop ther.property. Mr.. Hall Clted, the' COnditiots necessary for a,va_riance under ' S'ectlon.26 - 3'03:. Comm., Head-questioned if all four :conditions were to be met .before a variance e'ould. lie granted; Mr. Hall stated all four, conditions are to. be mete..,, Comm. 'Popp moved •a modification to the:- Subdivision,Ordinanee be for property located. at 28. Eighth .:Street. The was seocnded .:by. Comm. Waters. AYES., 3 NOES 3 ABSENT 1 Comm Bond 'a'du - sed he voted "'no'' in that ahe property is better designed, for two lots and` with the, present proposal; there would tie too much. d,eve'lo,pment for ,the property,; 'Comm. Wright cast. a. negative vote,, for the ,same reason:. The motion was no;t carried .due to a t_ie vo-te... , Mr Hall .adv, 1sed > =tYie applicant he could appeal the: decision of • ;the . 'Commission to the City Council. ;., RICHARD WILLIAMS FOR Mr. Hall explained the - r.eque - st of°Richafd Williams for THE 'MAHONEY CO..., INC. the, Mahoney Company, for a proposed shopping center to , E.I.Q..- EVALUATION . - have, the- ..fol1gwing;.tenantsy.. Payless Dr -ug. Store,,. Payless USE PERMIT, U18 -76/ . - Nursery, Fl y ,Mar,ket, _four, shops;,' a Bank.. 'The SITE DESIGN REVIEW': buildings range fr.'om 13 to 2:5 feet in,,height and cover, " 8, percent of the 'site,. 'There will be ' four (foot high. -4- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, `DECEMBER „2',1, 19:76 I RICHARD :'WILLI AMS FOR fence along the front of .the , ` operty 'aiid THE MAHONEY .C,O. INC ,' f site cons stin' of E.:L.Q:. (EVALUATION/ 6 foot high chain 1_nk' fabric °with ;redwood str ps;.:, " - U.SE' PERMIT' ';U18 =76'/' °'He ad'ded' - ',tiher:e' 'wilh'.be '239 pa -rkin& spaces to SITE DESIGN thet82 <,377 square feet of total g•ross`shopping A (Continued) . - 'center- floor : area. The Public Hearing ; was :opened -to consider the Env ronmental' Ques;tionhaire..- :3 - Mr. Charles Berg of Alderwood Court stated the shopping center and drainage d Y p would attra:dt vandal ^s to -the area -The area " is h ditch beind Alderwood.Court not' now ade uatel' R olieed •aria' th -: pro j'ect would` add fo � then present _traffic... ; �. problems on :B.aywood Drive �Mr Robert Piro;: Co,t;tonwood Court �.. stated the 1 project °would decrease property value. The, °`people. In the area .should have - 1. been no €ified`' .the hearing:as this'pro3•.ect will have an impact on. the corn"- munity which will be very det "rimeii'al He requested that <a decision on. the pro3ect be postponed. until residents, }of'' the :area ' had..been -,notif ed Comm. Popp stated ,the °property is zoned ~commercial`. and shad =been considered on .at least two occasions for` commercial'- .deve-lopment • Contif Pogp •.questioned if Mr, `.Piro 'stated hep;had known' df s,'°proposal. pMrp-.Gle fora bowfin alley. Mr. Piro knew the, ro ert had reviousl been r,o os g leason .Alderwo,od Cour.t, . was concerned that; Fry's- p p y Market 'would °back '.onto. his •backyard ro er-t , and the' noise from the "airkvents,-Non top the .inarket iaould:disrup:t'.the' people• t On Alderwood Court. Comm 'Bond "stated that;`parkng and access.to the prop Or • wou °ld be off 'oft Baywood Drive, and; it - is their intention to! "be ,sensitive , to neighboring houses of the-`-d6 I ent 'the rgfits of .these ':proper.tes with-., relation,-to ,Iighting and ino 'se, and in. =reality there is no '`reason., to .deny a' „'. developer the riryght °to.,build. on property that .is'- zone(f Comin...._ Bond' suggested'that; possibly developer,t'uld` meet with residents of. the area so :they.::might see .- and`dscuss the -proposed °'development, Mr.. Dick Will iams., developer, stated fie would` do, anything - to make ,, the- p.r,o§dct °feasible.,- but; felt he' had 4'a„ righ_t to dedelop the property:• Comm Bond 'remar.ked that ,good, commu- nity input is' good' for a developments 0 Comm Popp stated that if the main complaint for -'the development i.s cars speed- Yn_g on Baywood Drive and the' use of trucks ; in the: areea a meeting'between the: resident and developer' would not? - solve 'the °problem;• as -traf'f ic prob-lems'-. would - have t6•-be re'solwed by' the ';C 'ty:. Mr t'Glda'son 'stated "the. intersection" of, , y F.rancis'arid Baytaood 'Dr've is th`e main crossing -for elementary -school :;children attending Miwok School and if the.shopping: center' is aalowe:a a, serious traffic ' fromathe McDow elluBlaCthiealwill"6en'erPatrons .tos =the ;pro,p6's.ed ,shopping cerifier ate' :mor.e `traff'c. onto,' Ba wood Drive.= g y ­ r - Raiph Palmier; it`was the intent .that a' shopping' center: would: be ,put i1i; "this`- iocatio•n; `even: efore the SdywcoQa A,rmsr apartments: -- were built -,_ and -he• ;. ` elieVre`a shopping center would be an:asset'to the area Mr. Gleason stated was`, not :a sho'pping'tcen,ter r 'a,t 'Washington• ;Square, perhaps,: a shopping . center ih'ere would' be �an.�•�asset Comm Popp stated" this - • shopping center -was •. planned 'some 10 -years a'go : J 'The• a "real was .planned resYd&ntial and, a -small ..p ton was 3set "aside for commercial. use As a shopping center;.; Comm Horciza stated this is` not atihaphazard idea as some of these develop meats have b"'een planned .for -some time.,? Mr..:`Gleason questioned if it..',were, Possible to change' the ; design of the shopping; center >so3 th'a't .Fry's .Market -5- PhANNING:C.OMMISSION, MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 1976_ RICHARD' `WILLIAMS `FO &.., _and °Payless Drug back onto Perry Lane and ,, in -this way THE MAHCINEY .CO., : - - ''the parking -- spaces:would, act a ouYf • r or:� : ;hau4es Q Q. .;EVALUATION/ backing. "onto Alderwood Court:,, Mr Gleam seated he i - = USE PERMIT U18 76 {, had, lived . on Alderwood Caurt_'for ,a:t least four Years, SITE DESIGN REVIEW. and residents, have on an,tlae (Cant xbiaed) _ , area;;, ands„ no . notice..:had,.been, posted notifying, the public a. `bowling alley had been pr "ripas' d for the s'ita; Cotnmo .,Horcxza ,stated sigiq," Yiad beeaz. posted ixforxaiiyg, people a 0. pp "ng cc �EteY was proposed i - Mr , Gleaaon stated there was ;no "a:n6we4 o,r inforillation recel'v�ed from. the; photae` numb2r r listed an the posted signs Mrs It "e Snth, Alderiaood C�art,� q�ustioned who, is responsible for cleaning of ruFibish ,and' debris_ fr,o�a, the. drainage ";d -itch in back of Alderwood uourC; Go zna Horciza stayed the maintenance; of the !chann_el is the,' r.espgnsibil ity of tlie, City .. or Sooina,. Cd:unty 'Water; ;Agend y e I�Icas.. Smith.. `suggested the developer sheiuld .be, r• ®= . quiied• to instail: -a fence hig than ;6 feet along r the ^ ear property line of the shopping •c for pr:e " .tec on to `the, eighborhing Mies against, vandalaci)� Comm" 'Ho;rciza st Vhe- developer -is only :required; to; inatWall a°6 foo high fence and with, • the d'eczelopment of � this „piop:erty, ppl ce cars twill hale better ,access t_o ; the ; buck of' the;•property to a116w for-- better poiice.,OXotec'tion.., , ,. fi. y Comm Bond, ,stated it appeared that most of the concern foY shopping center was for ,the, inpazt, of .traffic it would,, generate, onto' Baywoad ana St Francis Dr ve;, Comma: Head, stait:ed_. reslden. is are part of . the environment` and the prop.c.sed; >., project would change their mode o d; _f life an their homes and; this in turn has .an effect on their environment•l, Comm Bond stated the p roperty is zoned, comm"er�c al and t_ e: applicant has a right to,;build: If the, residents are, tselatsng to comma- •, pity and 1 personal- ;natters,' `thy s' type of appeal sY►ouylii be hand3ed by the.'' City Council. Pat Collins,, En rironmental Planner retained by tt e.; applzc�nt, , stated a study on the impaca of traffic related noise said li'gfiting` from the proposed shopping center had. been._conOld tel. by the,,proppr ag th encies and' e .,Sit i Rev ew e Desgn. , Com- mta'ee . Fry” s 'Market` did an intaT traf study. fo "r Baywood Drive -in 'June 1;97 5 and'.Mar,ctir,19476,, ♦the 4v ; d'"ai.ly count,,'on-Baywoo. was.;;3,360,, which .is; now considered• a high traffic volume . The shopping' :center will add `to and affect the traffic on..B'aywo,od Drive.. Ms Cgllins suggested a, t- raffic' study tor. "the area could �be• "beneficial in 'bringing about, mitigating heasures.. Mr Williams stated' ;the shop;'' = pang center` had' "been. cbriceptua zed , .to: take, care; of, 'the present, trAf f is Arid the center would be,used by people who live-in the "community. Comm.'Bond. suggested',,. as this •development,,could change, the traffic pattern for the •ar,ea 'and more traffic would ;generalt'e -onto B'aywod: ve _ a limited traffic study :he made fox the proj:ect., He stated a traffic study should, be done,pertainin °towmitigatng traffic patterns for, the project,. Mr.. Hall,.questioned;' ;if residents, would be receptive to .the'shop ping center if a traffic. 'st,udy- inaicA-ted a ; minimal • traffic; impact Mr .' Gleason suggested the entt "r-ances t^',f!he shopping eenter"be ,from Perry ?Lane and .a s:fop sign be' erected` °'on. Perry Lane Gomm Horc ;za stated; a limited traffic.:study; .could per has ;be 'readied within two :weeka: The .o" "caner. of the property .has a ;right to' de�.elo.p' ` p his proper-t ,, and. the O'Ommission„ -can only. °review- the property. -and ascertain if 'the s property is correctly = ;zoned..: The dotal ission hit's to be fa i to the • ;builder and the j general pq'bl c and to ,arrive at the best'eomprom se for all 'concerned. The• public Making was closed.' -. F. Comm •Hedd--mo ed that limited .t <rafi c study for the, project be made and the matte be recpnsidered alt the'. ,Planning ,6mmiss meeting oft January 183 19:7'7 The ` iaas •seconded by Comm , :Bond; AYES, 5' NOEE&, 0. ABSENT 2= PLANNIN . G COMMISSION MINUTES,, DECEMBER. '2l, "1976 It 'was the u y ;the Commi sior -' to' continue "the . mieet n'g 'past the nanimous vote of hour of 10:30' p ni., , r DONALD PETRO -E..I; Mr. Hal ex lained the request of ; Donald Petro for a Q p EVALUATION/,SI,Tt proposed temporary'photo'°f'inish ng - outlet to•,.be located DESIGN REVIEW' at�37 °East Wasington St,reet.. `This site is- vacant and resent l' bein used for ark n The. r "ear 10 -Moot. wridTa p y g' P., g ; driveway i "s 'riot wide enough -to provide for' convenient internal circulatisri and the portion of Grey" S tr&et, 1 g the, site- is an unimproved `street. -Thet Public Hearing to consider the Environmental: Impact: Questionnaire was opened. Comm. Bond s't'ated it . is obvious the proposed application is not. for. - a long, term duration. If. it .s legal to 4110 :the *,proposed, Wen y" s R "estaura:nt at Wilson? and East .Washington Streets; to° make -. a, left "turn_'-movement across Washington Street, there is no reason this develo sho b e penalized :from making a left turn across 'the seine street "into' - his property..` ''Comm. Popp informed the applicant fhat the proposed .property_ has water ..problems .and. 'f l as. each: year. . Mr,. Donald Petro, applicant; `stated that due. to of the, site he plans to construct the building one fooa;abobe °curb height. A discussion was held relevant to Condit: ion , #9 :of -the - 'site design conditions which required: the applicant to imp.r.ove the hai_f street section.•on Grey S'treet..'Mr. Petro asked 'f - this; requirement. could' b'e delayed :as the ,si.te,'.would. only have a temporary use,. Mr. Hall- stated the Planning Commission `would have. to require, the one,- Half street, section of Grey 'Str,eet- to: be .improved consistent with Resolution. ��5`430 N,,.C.S.,'but.this condition could- be appealed by the applicant to the City Caw.nc.ii;. The; Commission questioned if temporary use could be permitted. for the .proj:ect, Comm.' Bond expiai.ned asi an example that; the :ice company operatingA on Washington Street Could be `c'ons'idered' temporary' as -the b "usiness' cool'& -be'� el.fminated at any time. The. Public •Hearing was - closed,..- Comm Bond moved..to: d`ir -ect the Planning Director' to prepare and' posh a; Negative. Declaration for `the pro ece `" The' motion was; seconded: by Comm. ; Waters. AYES 5 'NOES A ABSENT 2 Mt. Petro stated the.: s tructur e would.. have,- a,` derable rise if he were ,requir.ed to construct ' 2 eet above msl. The applicant! submitted a - loor level- at 1`3 , mb.er 2`1 1'97,6 releasing the City from flood l- iability to, the, pxoperty and proposing that the ,f10or.- level. of -he structure would be constructed I_ foot above curb height: - Mr. Petro stated the',proposed use fo - r the property would be intermittent; there WA , better_ use .for;'the property. Comm.,,.Waters moved to:appr6v the site design.for the Photo. Finishing Outlet with conditions of, approval. as •:recommended ":b.y' the staff and modified by the Architectural,& Si'te -Desig Review Committee with the following changes l.. Walls of the proposed building shall'•be' panted a /brown or cream color to harmonize faith the c ° lors 'used in the .Golden .;Eagle - Shopping . .Center: (Sec- ' ton 26- 405.1).: . -7- .PLANNING,COMMISSION MINUTES, DECEMBER 21,• :6 - 6, The floor level „of the °p'roposed building shall'be. acceptable to the Chief : Building Inspector based' ob acceptance .of the : Letter a 'emitted • to the appti leant dated . December 21, 19.7'6,,; waiving and% damage cl.edma .against, the 'to ' . Ciiy , .n liability duo: f7loodlng,.• 8. The East, Washingt6n Street ,exit shall_ be used ,f or right 'turns o-aly, and left turn exits shall', die prohibited .And shL! :(1 . b; designated for such con- trol by,-,a 'Gity ap.proved' sign. `Grime Prev°ent'ion SpeciAlisO_ 9. Space fo:r, 'stacking cif . four .automobi9les shall be provided on , site, The' apppl'ica'nt' shall construct half- street ,improv tment.s•, includ ng street: cu'rb,, ,gutter attd conerete driveway on G `ev Street .frontage,. _,("City Engineer) . Comma "Head seconded the AYES 5 ,..;NOES C:,. AASENTL . t REF•ERRt L FROM LAFGC -.. M ;.Ha1l explained' :a request had been. 'received ;from .• . PETALUMA. FEED_ . LAFCO regar�.ing PetaluII►a Poi;l`try Processors proposal, PROCESSING MILL, to construct a,. feed.'milling •,operation, on the, souttUA`st` - corner of 0 Redwood H3 ghw y ._and Ely .Road and a regpest that the, = property -`be, annexed "to the County 'Service Area Penngrove Sewer, .Distraca. ?� the - .Commission, :Co�. Bond: moved to :.recom ?er�d to the t,it:y' Afaer a discussion by Comm. C'ounc l,' denial of `t'he. etalunaa 3'oultr.y Processors•, prc.posa in that it is _hat ... fe'asible'•for. the .property to be .ahnexed .,to the .Penngrov - e Sewer 'District, ..Coin” -- Service Area. )No:.'' I • The.. motion .bras ;seconded: by Comm. Wat'ers'. AYES 5 NOES 0 , .. ABSENT' • 2 'EAST' ,WASHINGTON STREET s ' • It vas, general consensus that-­,the, - proposed d'iscus'sion: ; MCRI�TORIUM ;? on. !coinrier:cial; .establ•ishments ;moratorium, on East Washing- . ton, 'St.r'eet b'e Yest'h'ed 'uled Mr Hal,: inf ;ormed'the• Com- mission that, this was only to be a "d- iscussiori. item prompted by �Cb.mm..He -Ad,. ' ,•.• u,sine ;ss., . the meeting' adjourned ai ADJOURNMENT;•. There being no = further, b lls4(3 p.. Tr. ANTHONY . W;RI GHT' C tit.i s mars Attest RONALD F: HALL