Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/01/1977A G E N D A PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 1977 REGULAR MEETING 1 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCII, CHA�WERS, CITY HALL. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA The Planning Commission encourages applicants or their representative 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 Harberson Horciza Popp Waters Wright STAFF: Ronald F. Hall, Planning Director APPROVAL OF :MINUTES: CORRESPONDENCE: RICHARD WILLIAMS FOR THE MAHONEY CO., INC. E.I.Q. EVALUATION/ USE PERMIT U18 - 76/ SITE DESIGN 'REVIEW: (continued) CITY OF PETALUMA E.I.Q. EVALUATION/ USE PERMIT /SITE DESIGN REVIEW: 1. Public Hearing to evaluate the Environmental Impact Questionnaire for a Shopping Center to be located at Baywood Drive and Perry Lane. 2. Public Hearing to consider a Use Permit Application for a proposed Shopping Center. 3. Site Design Review of the proposed project. City of Petaluma E.I.Q., Use Permit and Site Design Review for a fourteen space parking lot to be located at the southwest corner of Bassett and Howard Streets. MC DOWELL INVESTMENT, Public Hearing to consider the adequacy of draft E.I.R. ASSOCIATION /DRAFT submitted by Del Davis & Associates, Inc. for 28 -acres E.I.R. along North McDowell Blvd. adjacent to Candlewood Mobile Home Park HARDY /GAVRILOFF- Hardy /Gavriloff Appeal of of Use Permit APPEAL OF USE PERMIT No. 1.203 for a Shopping Center located at 821 No. 1.203 SUSPENSION Petaluma Blvd North. ADJOURNMENT: �! ,PETALUMA' CITY PLANNING ,COMMISSION `, " _ ; FEBRUARY'�I 1977 REGULAR MEETING , CITY COUNCIL'CHAMBE RS,;'CITY HALL PETALUMA; CALIFORNIA � ,. Bond, Head., 'Horci'za, W,raght PRESENT" Comm. Bon ABSENT:? . ` Comm Harbersori, Popp , ,'Wate'rs STAFF: Ronali °F'. Hal =1" Plaftning'Direc or APPROVAL 'OF MINUT ,S - : The minutes of- the - adjourned meeting. of January 11, "1977 were approved as correc:t`ed, and the .regular meeting o'f. January 18;, 1977 were ,approved as submitted. Mr. Hall stated that a ,correction to the January, 11, 197,7 EDP minutes was nec.es- sary o""P' -ge. 2, Pa'r'_agrap''h° 3:; `the "statement `was not made by Phil Palmer. Comm, Bond explained that Mr - 'Balshaw informed him that he had made the statement, and. wanted fo cl`arify „the "fact that lie did' `riot nor did tl e. committee endorse 'a stri c,t ` L ._ 5 0/5`0 division of growth bu,t 'felt. that whatever :division might b' teas "onab °le - should be, adopted by the" Commission and '.forwarded to the Council'. They were• not in fact arguing wi h the: present 5.0/50 b`ut th - ey were not, suggesting ftiat it 'remain there necessarily. The epmmi'ttee said', there' "'should be''.ra ratio, but it should be establisfied'by policy aria not- j „us :,allowed t "o rise or ; fall with the d *emand`,but . b ;- on the 'other hand that :ratio 'probably should not, be 50/';50 bu should b' established ultimately by the City Council 'Comm. Hord za recalled'Mr Balshaw had said we' should not try to match. house to house, between - east' grid w s e`t.. j CORRESPONDENCE`: A° et ter" fx °om the Sonoma "County, Public Works advising a f x 45 MPH, speed 'limit sign w,o.uld be placed on the curve on 1 , `Rainsville' Road; in conjuriction with the `KOA'`Kampgrounds. Mr. Hall; advised the Commi.ss.on- a seminar would `6'e held at San Jose State Un_ive r- sity on ' 19,, 19.77 regarding "'The Planning Commission:, A Vital ,Link. to the Community” RICHARD''WILLIAMS FOR Mr "Hall reviewed plans submitted'by Richard Williams, THE_:MAHONi "CO., ,INC r.epresentin'g the Mahoney Company show the development EVALUATION / of a 'shopping center 'ao include! Payless Drug Store,. . varolls , .USE PERMIT U18 -76/ , Payless Nursery., Fry, s Super Market, , s hops. and SITE ,DESIGN REVIEW:;” a band' r A�, petiton 'was < filed :with sgnatures'.o.f 62 ,. r 3 T. (Continued) tenants ofiahe Baywoo;d - Apartments on'Baywood Drive in favor of the`:shoppin center. He further ex lamed g p hat at the' rev ous ubl c hear- + t .P g regar.di.ng `the shop- .. P , ping center it`' w' determined: that 'a ful E L.R.: was no,t necessary, but there w �. s , was justi':ficat> on to request'.a traffic s A second' petition was filed' sign'e'd 'by 33� residents stating the' site" `shoul'd be ;rezoned, other "than commercial.. Mr., ;H'all stated the traf'fi,c study, .completed. by Jo h' J;: _Forris "tal; Consulting Traffic Engineer from Oakland,, predicted the existing.traffie flows on the major streets w`ithin.ahe radius of the stopping center '" a� PETALUMA CITY` PLANNING'' COMMISSION „ MINUTES,, FEBRUARY 1,,.1977 _4 RICHARD `WILLIAMS FOR. 'The Citi''Traffic Engineer advised that 'two of the 'exist - THE MAHONEY .CO,. -, ING. ing daily counts, are listed i`n error. Haywood Drive,, + be E.I EVALUAT,IQN /' between site and St.. Francis Drive should ,3;j,80o not USE, PERMIT 7 U'18 '6,/' S,.00.O, and Haywood prve northeast o'f Et. Francis' Drive SITE :DESIGN REU:IEW`:: should b''e 3 „0.00,, not 4 , 2Q0: (Con ti nued') Comm. Horc ,pointed out the: ; average daily traffic on McDowell B'lvd.:, east of° `B`aywood Drive should, read- 4,06Q,. not 6,06.0. 'Gomm. Bond„ questioned if the ;t,raffic, count. B'a,ywood north of St. Francis Drive would increase 757- and at "what• point. would this increase of traffic be; a- problem; He, asked' if there' were' - any suggested mitigation for the school cross= wdlk• at :St Francis: and Haywood Drive. He stated .with the additional traffic, , 'there , arel no safety measures 'to make tte present crosswalk safer.. Mr,. Ha13 stated tli =a the traf f c report:indicated. peak hour traffic would occur;on.Saturdays and a er ` 4;00, p.m, on 'weekdays and would n`ot coincide with heavy school pedestrian traffic:. The public: hearing; was�Iopene'd tol'consider the Environmental Impact 'Questionnaire. Dennis Br- 9:20 St.. Francis Drive stated if there is going to be; any.' develop =: merit, this site should be designed for 'a park or something that would not generate traffic:. This development "would make. the area unsafe since' there, are hundreds o'f .- children who cross'this,.intersection every day ,to -go. to s.6hoo.l., He did not find anyone. who was in favo the shopping; center.. Pe'rh'aps. some of 'th'e people in the Baywood. apartments are in favor of ^it,, but the single- f o amihy: home re "sidentls are . 11 osed to 'a,sho in center Mar Loustalot 9913,Alderwood Court stated saf,et. pP pp � g a Y .. Y precautions should be for children on St Francis and a crosswalk be provided for people in the apartments acros's Baywoo.d Drive, before a °shopping center is built Anthony 'LaRuffa., 9 Alderwood Court, !stated' there are' sufficient number of centers for the4 present - p :op,ulatioa. He, expressed concern` for - the- safety of 'small children in the area.. He stated, 'the peace and tranquiiity of his home would be destroyed and the beauty of the ?area 'would' be destroyed. If a :shopping center i6 ` the value of his home would de,terior�ate., �We� would not- be ,improving' our. pr- op'er,ty and the area by allowing° •a shopping ;'center. ' '.He further added theret its no ;need 'for any, more shopping centers than 'we now - have,. Lucille Harrison,. Ashwoo(i Court,'f s.t'ated she had, been .in favor of a shopping, center, but in listening to the c'omments 'was not- in, doubt whether, she wanted a shopping center•. Susan Be g r ', 90:9 Alderwood' Court, stated it would' be 1mp - ssib•le to make a left turn out of the shoppirng center, .,and tl'Pat she did not want a shopping, _center. John Kerrigan stated he had beeii •involved wi?th the acqr uiing of; a traffit signal at Maria and,1ast ,Wass ngton Street. `,He had attended `Traffic Coinmitte_e and, City , Council mee,tings and was it to wait. and 's_ e -d 'e a was 'informed the cost for a, i signal would be $ When a little boy was struck at -this in't'er-se'ction, a_ - t"raffc signal wt's `installed,: A> shopping center, located -near a school would be a, d , si e at' St Francis and' Baywood.. net Le•'924 Alderwo od .Court., stated' the 4 -way a detriment to the children, Ja one, are not a safety fact "e _,_small chid: - p g - or for- th dren and. to add a,,shopp -ing eente r 'to this area would be a grave mistake. If the: shopping center is : values 'would lower The apartment tesidents who signed . „a, petition in 'f`avor, of the development do not own - property and : are not ,as concerned propert=y owners.!. Elaine Kilgore, Ponderosa btl e,y' stated ishe had :'compar=ed the proposed` 'stores with- other shopping center stores; and found•Payless Drug- is comparable to Thrift - Drug,, and Fry's Market is, comparable with - the ;other existing super markets; and an other 1 PETALUMA CITY PLANNING, COMMISSION MINU.TE_S, FEBRUARY - 1,. 1'977' _ RI.CHARD WI-LLIAM_S FOR - bank is riot °`ne'ed'ed. She further stated something should, THE MAHONEY CO,,, INC. be done•to beautify the east side. She felt she would .E,.I. „Q. EVAZUATION/ suffer a los's on her Home _f' a shopping center is built. USE PERMIT U18= '76 /'� She stated there is a '7 -11 ;Store and a P'rai'rie Mark'e't- in ,SITE DESI' ' GN REVIEW: the ,area that retirees can :use and ' a bus service which (Continued) stops at the other shopping centers. There was no mention of a shopping 'tenter 'being.built when she purchased her home in August felt she would not have bought this home, if t4here had been a shopping .center A Monarch-representative informed her a shopping ;center would, de-value her, property Comm. Head” explained this area had been.appr for c ommercial use on the: City's General Plari Anyone has a chance to protest a rezoning when it s proposed;; O s ls the time when people should make input and.not after the fact. Mr. Dennis Bryant stated ahe'General Plan had been.,drawn up before "many of the present residents; had moved into the neighborhood. He added 'an Environmental Impact statement is not required,,, but .a shopping center would have a definite effect on the neighborhood and the residents do not want it. John Kerrigan 'aske'd at what t -fine, the garbage would �be picked up at the center as the hydraulic pump of the garbage trucks can be heard from a, distance. He ques- tioned the distance between Fry's Market and the.neares:t home'? Mr. Hall explained the distance from Fry's MArket to the nearest home.'was: about .65 feet. Mr: Andy Anderson,, questioned the •need for so many shopping centers. He indicated there -is a school on St. Francis Drive and :every consideration should -be given to the safety of the `small .scho,ol children.. He. did not see a need at this time for. another shopping 'cent'er,- and suggested a better' use `for the 'land" would be a chil- •dr:en''s playground or park. Mr. Williams, developer, stated the proper is,zoned.fox the use as proposed here. Previous plans for t'he,'site display,ed'�a.'much- larger project„ and a bowling alley.. The street system was d'es;igned' " to accommodate this type of development. He felt it would be a good development .anal'would generate $60,'000 to "$80:,000 in tax revenues for the City and provide an estimated 75 jobs. The distAnces :from all dwellings to the shopping center are in conformance with City Code and specifications:— Garbage would be cked up in the back.icentral court yard:. Mr.'Wil'liams anticipated the shopping tcenter would not; generate as much 'traffic as 'the traffic; consultant pre - dicteda Mr. LaRuffa questiorred what measures would b'e.used to prevent garbage trucks from using tkie. road opposite, Ald'erwo.od Court and what preventive noise measuresv are suggest' :ed between-the shopping center iand Alderwood Court. A resident stated truckers at the Washington - quare Center drop their trailers f.or two or three -days to unload, and i would be - the. case at the proposed shopping center, it 'would cr "eate an eyesore'fo;r the people on ATderwood Court. Tr- _ailerr;s would be jammed' into the corners and' back portion of the shop- ping cente''r when there is a larger parking area in -ethe front portion of the prop- erty. Comm. _Wright questioned if trucks would "6k -Lt'from the property to Perry Lane;. Mr.. Williams stated. the parking lot'would'be a continuous motion and'truc_ks would leave via Perry Lane. 'Comm. . Head stated the people who would operate the'' shopping,center would like t'o`work in'conjunction with the people in the community in an effort to establish good, public• -relations.® Mr Bryant stated that normally the high overhead parking lights would be left on ' and - would' ahY o ne- onto the adjacent pr- op, erties. ''Mr. Hall, explained the lights, that would ill, uminate the parking area would be designed so as to reflect the light` -3 PETALUMA CITY 'PLANNING COMMISSION. MINUTES., FEBRUARY 1 19 RICHARD WILLIAMS FOR away from adjacent properties. The 'lights to the rear of ' THE'MAHONEY CO ", INC, the stores would, not affec the prope es, on Ponderosa • E.,I. EVALUATION/ Drive. Mrs.. Leone stat "ed;• crime, would be, a ma:j;or factor; USE PERMIT Ul8-76:/ where `t.here are ,§to.r s, there 'are 'undesirable's. The lights SITE ,D,ESIGN .REVIEW: would display an area view of - _her= backyard. Comm, 'Wright (Continued) explained the proposal is f6t, -low lighting for the center Mr. Ha11 a, special, type of lighting is proposed which would, not cause - problems •for' the neighb.oting homes,. Mrs: Berg questioned if a 10--foot wall along the side of Fry",' "s Market 'would be a better separat•ion'barrier f'or.r:esidenf's on Alderwood C,gurt,. Mr Hall explained that when the-site design fo:r the, project, "is discussed the need :f:or a higher wall- will be considered,... Kay Spear, Ponderosa Drive., stested, the 120 to 1401ooit distance between the shop- ping tenter and her, home would not, t cut down the noise factor,. School children attending Miwok " would °be affected by the additional. traffic. She was opposed to the shopping center-.. had known there 'as;a "shOpping center pro- posed for the 'site but bel =ieved(it would be,a small. neighborhood type center She'was opposed to viewing - the loading berths from her two story home. She asked that the deve_loper'be. required to plant trees, and not shrubs on the back portion . of the property to reduce the no se,factor. Mr. Hall s ated.this zhopping center would be considered, a neighborhood center., Comm. Wright mentioned that`Payless Drug would.generate.a considerable amount of ,peop'le, even from the 'Novato area. Mrs Kilgore stated the proposed'saorea are a duplication of' stories already located in other hop "ping centers. .The noise from trucking rigs cannot. be prevented, and beer bottles will be strewn throughout fhe area. She did not want -A-, shopping cen- • ter of this, nature located at-her back-door._ Comm. Head moved to direct the ;Planning,, Director to, prepare and post ,a; Negative Declaration for ,the.- pr.oject The motion was lost; for the lack of, a second: Comm:. Bond,questioned what alternat= ive`could be used in lieu of a M gative,Declafation. Mr.Ha11 stated the traffic problem had,been'.resolved with the submittal of the .traffic analysis. He explained we cannot interfere with the free, market system: Economics could be considered onit_he surround -ing, properties;; an alternate route.: could be considered f'or ingress and egress to the property as well as consi.detation of a; not "se barrier between Alderwood Court and the shopping center. Mr. Hall ;ex equ cause plained the .Commission,co,uld deny the re "st: be. of testimony presented which indicates the pr-oj`ect could have %z significant = impact on the ,environment. If an' is required, the staff would direct the 'consultant to review each of the issues presented:, Comm. Wright stated he was not sat = isfied that noise factors,, economics and, -light, ing were sufficiently covered 'in 'the report,. Comm,. Head stated most people are . victims, of convenience;` and., ;a shopping t Ah would be a convenience to the putil' c., A `shopping" center would more than likely improve property yaluea then have 'a. negative effect on the value of property. Comm. Horciza stated there und'oub'tedly is amoral_, dilemena; a problem of impact on the neighborhood', the devaluating of properties which would :concern all res - : dents in the area. Also the right's: of the property owner should,-be protected. This site 'ha•s been zoned commercial and i�t is witr►in the rights of the property owner to develop his property :. Hei suggested, a 'traf'f. �c aignal at •,Baywood- and .St Francis would perhaps help the tr situation. Because :�of� the size of the development,, there are not too many things that can be done to lessen the impact; - PETALUMA CITY - PLANNING �r RICHARD 'WILLIAMS FOR THE MAHONEY CO'.'., INC. EVALUATION/ USE PERMIT U18 -•76/ COMMISS ION .MINUTE S, FEBRUARY 1,, 1 TT , and the onlm.y, alternat :ve would ber to decrease the. size ,of the center We have to decide whether to allow this devel- ,opment or. rezone the .property. . SITE DES }IGN. REVIEW: Comm. Bond expressed concern fora traffic signal at Baywood Continued and St. Fr ( ) ancis.before a..shoppng center is built, for the safety of children and the elderly living at the Baywood Arms apartments, and the =noise -factor the development would gen- e "rate. He stated the project as- a.neighborhood shopping center is inappropriate. It should be compatible and fit the needs of,,,.the neighborhood. Comm...Horciza stated to requir_e. developer to 'p repare an E n vironmental Impact Report is.ext-remely ex pen- sive and if this is a requirement -i=n- order to proceed with this study,: the .developer then may be turned down on the Use .Permit application. Commw Ho moved,t_o direct 'he .Planning Director to, prepaie and post a Negative Declaration,for the proj`ec,t. The mation,, seconded by Comm. Head. AYES 3 NOES 1 ABSENT 3 The public heari=ng, relating to, Permit was opened.. Mr, Hall explained the Commission had at this time;.all the;inf'ormation needed to,<evaluate the Use Permit.. Mr,._ Williams asked that cons'id'eration of the Use Permit be continued until he could contact people in the 'ar.ea'who would support the shopping center. Comm. Wright ex- planed it would not be pro.p'er to continue the hearing. The developer could petition peopPa who were in favor of the cente but residents' could also pet -ition people who were against the center.. An investor for the stated' - people; who:. would want -a shopping center do not attend meetings,. We:are talking about searching for a dollar are talking about,. maintaining proper=ty`valuesE We� have -done ,everything the fetter of the law requires;; this is' a commercially: sound pro�ee_t. Thin- project will bring money.. to ,the. City to buy parks,, and the, center. will create'jobs. Competition is thel opposite of monopoly which results in lower y Businey s should not be considered inher- ently bad and i.f .a- is,. <business run ro erl everyone wi=ll: benefit. Mr. :Bryant stated the- pnoject,does not'meet the standards.to, : :. s,sue*a Use Permit. The project would be .a neighborhood nuisance,,. create .traffic • problems, and wo be unsafe for the ,.childr.en in the area.. The public hearing was-,:.Closed. Comm. Hor.cza :,que`s`tioned the route of ,trucks through , the.. :s.hopping. center, and what measures could.be._tAkeir..toi 'allevia- te. - tl e-noise level,..; Comm. : - :Wright envisioned semi- trucksebeing very noisy. Comm Hor,ciza . asked, if it were..ppssible to., redesign the parking lot for better maneuverability of trucks;. :.C'omme: :.Head stated., we have an alternative; move the - par=king lot to'the• rear of the property,and -the buildings to the, front of .the' pr.operty,. Comm. Head moved' to-grant-the the 'Use ,Permi.t., with th'e following : : .conditi'ons;:. The 'developer to work ;with the residents. of the neighborhood.' t.o_.ascertain, proper tra -flic control before the shopping center : .opens';,. ; .and,", ; adeq;uate: crosswalks be pro- vided ;as_, a safety measure for children,. - .,The .motion ;died .for-the lack of a second. Comm Horci.za, felt the develo should work, with the .City sstaff_ °and tperha ps come up with :.a different arrangement for the center and ano_ther., uu - c hearing be held to ,r;emove some of the :undesirable. conditions. • Comm. :;Hors'za -moved that the devel oper make a further study on an al arrangement of the buildings for the -5- PE . TALUMA CITY-PLANNING COMMISSION-MINUTES, FEBRUAR-Y 1977. 'RICHARD WILLIAM& % FOR, center,, and that he the st, . Af-f so THE MAHONEY 'C&. INC.' as t o s�atisf y a1i, safety requirements �and` no i'se f actors, E.� I. �'EVALUATION/ and consideration bd­g�'_:Ven;�to; new site �d' esjgn. The 'USE PERMIT U18­76/ hotllon 'died for :the - lack of a second. SITE DESIGN'REVIEW: (Con,t Comm.. Bond stated ageqcies- of .the' ,-City have,.alread y checked • the projecit and are - in agredment.,;Twith - the_p�ropos'al - and a general. appeal - to the, , community _. answer'. We, are putting"Nk. .Williams on the spot to, c:bthel We !should a:ddri--sis the environmental aspects, or grant Use .f Ind ',t- .1 hrough, the, site design Comm. Ho stated some - of: the problems. are, noise safety .land' - gq.. the arrangement- of the center and these ­t-' s.-.are,. enera1l-_V<_Addres'sed. in the site poin. design,; how ' ever,,, they - do go - hand in Viand with- , ':th'e­ Use= Permit ;. .,Comm. Bond stated a Negative De says the - ,prdje�ct h s a negative effe6t on the'.e ronm6n.t i ,has . Comm. Horciza commented: the foremost consideration of ° erivvf - was the traf fic situation. Comm-. gori:d stated ther& was no - discussion of thee mitigatin . g- measures of tra-fl-fic on Baywobd and St. : ra Fi'd- -h the .rig of t r -he' develope I I., 1 -1 . _ - __ - . - ncs an .question - can.'be - acknowledged through a Negative 'Declaration and denial of the 'Use' Permit;. Comm. Head moved to grant t Permit with con.dit,16ns•of approval.-as stated-in the staff report. Comm. -Hoxciaa seconded' the motion. AYES. 3 NOES' 1 ABSENT` ::' 3 Comm. Bond, stated per-hap's at this point -we,-should ask for_ . as it may take an zt, 1- ..at6 or -a r Comm .'.Head we Justified in. ,ask- Ing- f or a continuance to. deal,.'with ofi:. and the -safety of ped'e's trldns.. M&re_s.�tu_d_y is needed for appropriate, -crosswalks.. and, traffic signals C omm. Hoxciza ;stated 'traffic: studies - are valid t6chniqjjo numbers. Traffic .studie`s do not 'analyze the problem 'of a There has, always been d trafTIc problem in this area ,,with , child"ren.:cros:sihg; this' intersection'; we would not like to have anyone -get hurt,: He, suggested , the &-Ttdf-fic- Committee be urged to, make a,'traffic study when the shoppip 'center 'is !.:ap�p He further suggested the d'ex.6loper, submit two or three alterna f or the­. of buildings j and a pxopo.sal for noise c and of trucks. Comm, , lighting the Bond stated 'the projecz,t could be - returned back. t-o-.;t�he-.F, 'do"mihittee for .rd- view by' the - architec!t , and !developer and be limited to.-. concerns of 'the people. Wright 'Comm right— s-d - es,ted a citizens' committee-:could be.. formed to work with _ the staff. It was agreed to have a group of �CiLtiLzens staff. Volun- teers for the site d esign review-meeting ate St. Iftahcis Dj:IVe; Charles and Susan Bergi 9,0 Alderwood 924 Alderwood Court; Donna Sankb'-f-Lf, 921 Alderwood Coliatt; Arm-k6ny _J­­,1,Laft.ff-a 916 Alderwood Court; Edna LRuffa, 9 Alderwood'Court.*, Alicia 'B! Manansala, 920 Aid,&kwood Court; Robert Piro', °909. C&t­tonwood Court.i z d e At .;least : . it i s a step in the right Airection�, to determipe if.i chan'ge-in scale or;.de.,g-i to the people.- Comm. Bond stated the volunteers would they should come. .committee ommi'ttee me6ting with constructive, �;cri-t-ism;?. '0 f­the:; and design* feature proposals to corre6t' :the 'problems Mr. Williams',s he was n sure what was bein suggested. Comm., Head coififfietited' this new and we will have to play it by qar., Perhaps. we could - get. to,. alleviate the ob- j of noise,, privacy for Ybsident 'et Comm'. -Wright stated. this' meeting �• x l PETALUMA, ' CITY. PLANNING. 'COMMISSION ;MINUTES,,, FEBRUARY 1.,, .197.7. RICHARD WILLIAMS FOR 'may 'be.,a case of °,education.. Comm Horciza stated the �.' THE' MAHONEY CQ. , INC. ... basic problem is the ,prof ec't, pposed_ to be . a neigh.- E e.I,: Q 'EVALUATION/ boyhood sYiop,p hg, center., arid the ,prop'o'sed development USE` PERMIT U18` -,76,/ looks 'too much like a major. �shop:p_ ng :center. We are, SITE; DESI -GN REUIEW; trying° to come up with-new ideas-_--oh _ to make,. the (Continued) project possible,; maybe. it.rs - impossible because-the „ lots are in close proximity .to° the. homes. - .__Mr..Williams stated; he would. - `be more tlia'n .happy -to•'cont'inue with discussion of the p.r:oject' as far as traffic, signals -and "hoo`ls' However,, the zoning ,is consistent for a shopping center and the staff'is in agreement with the'.project.; ' Comm ". Horc -iza moved that. the ro , ect be .:returned the . Design Com „ P,, J mittee- f'or additional ,study by the staff' in conjunction' with .the volunteer citizens group and -the developer, and the matter be r:e'c'onsidered at -the next - Pldnning�.Commi:ssion meeting on February 15, 1977. Comm. .Head seconded the motion..} °AYES 4 - NOES .0 ABSENT. 3 The meeting date' set for the above commi'ttee's to review `:the. project was Tuesday, 11 February - %8, 197`7 at .7 00 p m. in the City Planning ar�tmen Office., CITY OF PETALUMA, Mr. Hall ex laned the re uest.::,b the.;. City-: to locate a P q y y E--' EVALUATION /` par'king lot at the c:8rner, of Bas'sett.and Howard Street. USE,- -PI RMIT / SITEE The ' proposal is for nine Add i.tional parking spaces to DESIGN - REVIEW. - an exiating lot having "five-parking spaces., The site is vacant :and iias approximately:: 3;500.. square feet; cars would enter—the lot'fr_om ,Howard Street and exit onto Bassett-.: drought situat -ion or are °we' going: to require landscaping Hd pref:erred that Comm. Ho.rciza asked if we are going to inherit fenci.n all over town with the t a hedge be. placed on this corner in -lieu of a, fence,. Mr..:.Ha11:. stated the City is asking applicants to submit letters de-ferr-ing landscapirig where yegetation is 'roqu gy red, d'ue to present'• drought' c'onditionns. : Comm. Bond commented thin is a City project and we' Have, a teideney "to :lower .,conditions. The City. has An'- obligation- to make their group l.s as attractive :as , _a .p'rivate:- developer with interior landscaping and a minimal . ' o "f; - screening around - ;the corners of the property: Comm: , Horciza .suggested Condition 462 be.- deleted and a hedge be planted when the' water crisis,' is over in lieu of ' rep'airing` the wooden 'fence. The 'Public hearing was opened' to consider the, 'P.ermi _ comments were offered -from the audience-and the public hearing was -closed: C6m'm.- Wright suggested that landscaping; be required' • around Spaces 10, 11, and` `3. Comm,. Hot 'iza moved t' grant the U'se 'Permit to all'ow..a.`City.:,parking lo .t, with the three co nditio_ns of approval as recommended by the staff with - .the following changes: 1. Ito' delete last ,clause and. ins-ert• "The_ Boxwood Hedge-that is indicated on the site design plan be from minimum. hive (5) ga`1.1bn � :containers and 'b e planted in the,'area 'bordering 'the streets when .the water crises is over.. L`and`scaping shall be„ in a_ecordan�e with 'Exhibit A. -7- A PETALUMA CITY'.PLANINI90� C,OMM-ISS I .ION.-MINUTtSi..�FEBRUARY",,, 1971 EIIY' OF 1.0h(I moved for appt­ -he. s- gn with 9yal-of-t te'.de§ .i E-VAIUATIOW conditions of xed:oirmended,. b Comm-. Y. 4ppk.6_v61_.as:. USE'.,PERMIIISIT'k with the f'o additional change: DESIGN REVIEW: (Continued) li' Interior p rovided ,lie een "areas :` a:nd- 91 12 R . tw, lv. °' on the,corners of . 1 0 !I, but than landscaping be`. delerred: - until', the water, crisis is, :over. The motion was seconded, by Comm;.Head. AYES' 4 NOES 0 ABSENT McDOWELffil INVESTMENT, Mr. 'Hall exp.laihed, ',!drd -a f- - p m act Report A'SS.0C1A,TION/DRAFT had been pj:'epar6d b.y�. Associates conceth-ing, R. I R;. the development of apprQXimat ly- ­2& located; on Nbrth Blvd.- adij;. Can�dl6wood Mob 'Home Plax*i The subject. P, intended ., for :Bevel- opment as z Planned Unit = Distri_qt cons 1s,,tjing_,.,o_f.. Q, a residential units„ 44 conventional sringle= family horrf.ds .'and- 61 to-moderate- inco . me f amilies: Comm, Ho.xgi questioned .if it were pqpstble' , f 6r, d'eveloper.-to. p roj�e'ct the ptice, range of, homes, with - the escalated; infiat-ion­.' d At— i ­ � -11 . : s, almost impossible to do so. The Cit-y'.Council should acoftsl than ' . g-in,g this., condition of the system f'or futiire developmegts. C omm,.. 1tdm I'l, on Page 4 of the 'staf repot t -shoul .b,e,,- to;_ r,,ea�d.' 6. "Mr. Hall explained if the comments and inf rmat.1or1-1pr.,o.V ddd". the E. I- R. this would constitute a. f inal 1 And, could -be- ce.,rt-ifie'd:.'by�-,the,.: Comm si6n. Mt. Hall ;stated .th E.I.R. cannot- Predict a drought, but it .1s -fgaidlbie for a,'developer to drill. _we is oh a It, be reasonal$l'�-, 66 without the water coriside Comm. Horciza commented this prplect rec'elved'. a 1 bt. allotment, system with the low cost housing pxoposal,-.. The Building I or with , on the draft EJ .1R. regarding the. -relatloriship;.: be * tween 'unfinished second s floo levels � and the,emerg'en insulation standards: - ' y A representative frotn Feature 'Homes �,explaine8 tlie, h _111d:_1 g, .Inspector envisioned there would be open acc'e'ss. The ihsUla,tibn- complied a d -twi th He stated, they were t.r-y1hg to build a, home, on! the Jow,!, - of;- the & and 'had hopds to build a nice looking house that ha dx ,andAh1er._:cApab1lifte.s4 We could propose that people can have a hquq,e.0with unf'inishe'd;l..second flubs - or i . f pre- fer-4ble this 'pottiotl:of t w he house- 'il comp leted!', the proposal was �attractive I to the. S ite Design Commit-tee they. . ,encourb�&­,fiew Adeas. Comm H6t 11 z a questioned the f lood' aspect's of the p,�:rrq if' .mitigating i measure . s were. , covered in the 'event of A-. 10,Q y6dr;- f . . loo-d - - ;_� - . - Mr - ­:;Del-'Davis stated, the : Zone is further 'to the west; Thej�oxv d lVe.-tt- under McDowell. ted. f, rth., 0' tf is not, ade - in size :and the channel -'has riot beeii,.4p ained i ditch will have to - be .improved on one -,, §1de: as indicaie.&Vy 'tile onoma C , outty Waver-' Agency Mr. Davis: indicated the box culvert' 964 &e the responsibility of the; developer as 'a 'condition of; the :s­te • -8- PETALUMA CITY :PLANNING COMMISS =ION` MINUTES;" FEBRUARY° ';.19-7 McD.O.WELL INVESTMENT: The public ,hearing, was opened ,to.. cons -ide'r the Environ- s' ASSOCIATION /DRAFT mental Impact - Report;; - No cgininents :we.re. from `E L. R., the audience and the public . hear-.ing, was closed. (Continued) . Comm. Horciza ,;moved to. cert fy =t'tfe >E.I R.... and the l changes as "r•ecommended'by ,t'heR.st'af;f :. :be ineo:r.porated in.the The motion was'seconded by Comm. Head. AYES 4 ' NOES 0 ABSENT- -3 HARDY /GAVRILOFF- Mr;. Ha1L that Ron' Hard: y;,aGavriloff. APPEAL ,O:F - USE PERMIT had „ app.ealed the; susppn .orir, of : the ir,. for a NO. 1.203 SUSPENSION': shopping :cen!ter aocated. at - 8'21 : :Pe:tiluma . Blvd.. North.. The suspension pertained to landscaping of the ,property, illegal sandwich, 'board: signs; an :.t'he...-p.•roperty,.failure, t install approved signs and' i1- le;gal o,utsid.e s :t +orage o:f' b.ci es He. added the appli cant was to di_scont hue - the •s ,'torage of, buses on - the. rear of the property within a three month period,. Comm. Bond' :ned why the applicant needed-, three - riths. „.t;o. fulfill these obligations. Mr:. Hall- exp1aineTd this wa's -'academic,- -as the City wanted the appli cant to apply fot a`Use Permit for the bus storage. that they .remove• the, s andwich board signs., frown s of��. the:.Yshop.pang_:eenter asking Comm',. Bondy moved' that. letters be sent the tend g, the.. front of .the shopping center immediately, that the storage of buses on "the r`ear..part `of Mthe property be dis- continued. within 45 days, and that ahe ap`p.roved; landscaping be, completed when the water' crisis is over,, and further that a Use.:Permit' b'e- obtained for the bus operation The ,motion was seconded by Comm. Horciza._ AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT, 3' ADJOURNMENT': There being no further bus iness,'the•mee ng adjourned at., 1105 p .m. Att'est: M