Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/16/1977�- M I N U T E S. 'PETALUMA;'CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16, 1977 REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P'M'." CITY; COUNCIL - CHAMBERS; CITY PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA. Present; Comm. Balshaw, La�iq, Waite; and Wright i Absent Comm Head H'orc za and Shearer Staff': Ronald F. Hall, ;Planning Wayne P. Rasmussen, Assistant Planner' APPROVALi'OF MINUTES: The minutes of the meeting of August 2, 1977,. were approved with the following change in wording for the W. R. Hill,igoss'Modifed Site Design,; Review: Change the, word '=trailers" to read "m-'obile homes". CORRESPONDENCE: Mr. Hall indicated there was correspondence received and that it would :be• read as each agenda item is discussed. I •, CONSENT CALENDAR: Debra Homes, Inc*. Comfn. Balshaw made: a motion to accept the Consent We,stridge Subdi -.. 'Calendar items. The:motion,was seconded by Comm. vision 'Unit '#3 Lavin.: ® Dr.:Glen Kob EIQ AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT- 3 Evaluation /Site Design Review ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP, / Mr. Hall explained that at the City Council.Meeting of GOLDRICH, REST AND Aug ust * l5, 1977,'he, had' reviewed the staff report that ASSOC. = "EIQ EVALUAT .ION- had prepared for the rezoning application. The AND REZO 1 NING REQUEST:" project was considered as a to project. It was difficult. to divorce: the PUD Rezoning' from the change to the General Plan,and• the Environmental Design.Plan. Mr. Hall went on to outline the eneral• information included in the staff rep.or:t. The subject site is vacant;and has'been:`us'ed for ha roduction The y p existing St. iaine`s Church boundsL the subject site, to - thei northeast, Washington Creek.and' East Washington Street Vound.the site to 'the east, and single- family residential homes bound.the site 'on southwest, west,, and northwest sides. The submitted plan hows; a total of fifty (50) garden= type.apartment units and a fifty (50) unit apartment ; building, and covered parking for f =ifty (50) cars that would .cover ; approximately 47,602 "square feet of the - subject, site. The, remaining appxoximately..four acres will be in access'roadway_s, uncovered park- ing,. paths and landscaping The buildings associated with the development will cover approximately one acre of the five 'a:cre% site. The, height, of the garden -type apartments and the apart - ment'bui:lding would be 2'6 feet'. This is comparable to :two-.-story housing., Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes Au g us 1977 The Developers pr.opos'e -to construct the apartment building to within 15 feet of the •adjoining single - - family ,residential, lots , 'The Planning- Depar , recom- mends that all structure. I s be set. back at lea "st"40 feet from adjoining single- family residential lot lines. Previo.usl'y, a church- :oriented school was des'ig- �. nated. and the impact of a school could be.`.signif`icant in a residential area. In any evert, whether it is: going to be _a:school an'apartment project:,. -the Department felt there should be adequate buffering for the ' project. At .last night's! Council,Meeting someone indicated ; that -because the :Department had considered -the need for a buffer and. a greater setback that. it indicated a somewhat incompatible situation: Mr,: Hall, explained, 'that he tends - to disagree. No matter what change of land, ruse you have i•t. seems` app.rgpriate that ' there 'tie an .adequate buffer - separating the :uses. We are- considering a' type of, land" where 'there :is a `need for harmony - between'this use and conventional .single- family. ,homes: Mr: Hall stated : that, the staff report points, out mitigative " measures. and that aside. from the ;staff , report acid recommendations there will hopefully ':be some input at the ;meeting tonight i. that will :provide.further mt -' gaton and constructive criticism; input that will help .us to design a good project not, one, that will be, condemned at the_ > outset -, but will be considered. in good` faith.. The only, outstanding physical feature of the site is the 'tree -lined Washington Greek that, is located along the southe'as;t 'property line of, the : su"bJect site a -xid the'remainder of the church property. They develoPer proposes 5.0 co., and...25 ,uncovered parking'• spaces for 'the garden -type 'apartment b "u .d• ng, port-i_on of the . - development, which does comply with the ,Zoning; Ordnance requirement; however, ' the developer proposes only 15' .uncovered parking spaces for the 5'0; unit apart- ment. buildiftg portion. - of the id evelopment: The, Developer contends that since the apartment building, portion will be for elderly citizens6,. the-demand for . parking.spaces will not be very great. The Department. disagrees and recommends that there beta minimum of one parking :space per apartment unit, or •.5:0 parking, spaces to accommodate the residents, management and 'visitors... At this time 'Mr. `Hall used the viewfoil showing- an alterna -tine' design''which indicates additional parking area. The design takes, into consideration - the 40 foot. setbacks recommended.: - There is change In, the. d'esign location of the individual units and also, the. setback -of 40 :feet is' 'maintained around the... . ..perimeter of the site adjacent ao the single- family homes: We have. moved the complex of build ngp, over to use, the 1Argg block. �of„ o,pen space which we felt might become an undesirable area at:ttact =ion for . entire neighborfiood. It is better to have a special play area indicated within the,. centez of`the complex. I•t ,iq my 'understanding that the,' Developer representative, Mr.; :Hirsct , met with many of the property owners; - 1 t- ,'night after the public hearing, .and. I am sure that he will be willing to report the results of that meeting: Th'e ,D;eveloper' propose - s a private street to •serve all ;100. - units,. The private. street width. of 25 'feet is adequate; - however., there is'concern about the. site distance'at' the corners and -inter, .It_ s ,recommended'•that- _Iandscap ng 'on the corners of intersections: be kept below 3? feet, .in, height.: - -T -he cirtulation: system,, .as proposed, provides for only one access to the site -,' with, two turnaround areas within the development area- Although this° circul'a= tion system, is 'workable,, it would be- much =re convenient if there were another access poif t at Ely. Blvd. North. No si ns have been pr ' oposed at.. this time, 'however,, if signs are' to,. be requested, � r the developer must obtain 'S permits.. _2_ Petaluma City P .'lanningtCommission-`Minutes; 'August 1'6'-;` 19'77` Mr Hall continued with the• comments`'by „the different reviewing agencies.° "The Assistant City Engineer requires',that'`a parcel map be record'ed`to divide `this •' property ' The D'evelo.per "will be" required `to make one =half' str'e'et improvements "'to "Ely Blvd': 'North - from t'he"'western side 'o -the' private "street ac'ce'ss to "Edst Washington Street. The Chief Building Inspector urges that additional off street parking be'`pro vde`d 'to help 'avo.id complaints .:by residents and 'visitor s .'­:The Community ire velopment' and "Services Coordinator "aIso recommended additional off'; street par The Fire Chief requires .three on =site fire' 'hydran,ts.'` Fire warning` detect(3rs' must,be installed per Fire Department specifications. Afire sprinkler system must be installed'in the St: James Manor "(elderly cl,t'izens' apartment build ing) Emergency vehicular access ` "must be' provided over turf' blocks' "to' tlos'e , garden -type apartments located in the southwest "corner r: . .. of'the project sf-te 'and emergency vehicular lI accessmust.be provided to the south side of St. James Manor`: 'The ° private street must be 'designed to. support emergency vehicle's weighing 16 tons. The Sonoma Gbunty' Water Agency 'r'equir'es the Developer to make Washington'Cr'eek Channel improvements from Ely Blvd North`fo the southern property line of the •- l ' , r _ r Y . e' Agency specif i- site 'improvement Tans must "'meet p p the Sonoma Count Watr cations. _ , ,_ In regard 'to the`;publ c input,,' -it was noted that the' rezoning` public hearing l t _ was noticed in the Courier' and" "property owners within 300'feet' of 'the • subject site had been''notif "ied'by mail The Planning Department 'has received 'r phone calls from "`nearby property' owners, and also from St. James` ° church parish - oners:indicating''a concern over this proposed rezoning `A letter was also present 6d this evening from ' a`Mr: - Ernie Bennett: A Gaff , was received by Mayor Putnamr'from; _a Diane D"mingaz of 1629 Street Ms'. ',Dimingaz indicated`' f.. h 1 .� .. S' 1 1 r 1 A 1 .. ,,.. t be'able "'to be' at "the meeting "ton gh't, but wanted 'to indicate -her concernlover'' o '6 l 0. tuatio the , 'h igh , ... the schoo sin and ' - density zoning, - ` 'Mr 'sta'te'd that as far ' as - the School District is there; apparently is no problem ' .- rte. al with .accommodating students; ` b ut - if a` s'peci`fic- re'que 'st `is''ma`de to have a' st- ,dent attend a particular school, there may be a problem. Generally, there is enough' space in the` Old Adobe School District to accommodate all new- students. The P staff has' determined' that t•he proposed p'rojec't could have the following• environmental impacts`:' 1) The 'a'ddi'tional traffic generated by' the development may cause an adverse environmental impact`; 2) there might -ve a`n- adverse,env ronmental impact upon the School System; 3) the project may effect tge rate and amount of surface water' 'runoff, 4')'the',proj'ect may result• in - �.,. - -..' increased `noise levels; 5) 't• will •alter `the _ present - land` `use of the the prod ec area; '6).the project may result in an alteration of an archaeological- site; °7) the proj may cause an adverse environmental effect upon human beings in the area, 8) the project will cause the ''removal of `a number - ''of' -substantial -trees locat`e3 along Creek': Mr: Hall continued stating `th`at the key it'e'm to keep in mind in an environmental ''review is that ' "there will-' always_, ` without doubt p some that are considered adverse. The key i nificant ,_ be environmental im acts an word 'I ' "sibs'tantia'1" `or `sg " `• environmental impact. -That must be k'e'pt in mind by the Comniiss -ion and by people who are here tonight to give testimony. • The staff ,'anticipated ,impact p.otent-ial ; from traffic and suggested that the developer:hir.e a traffic engineering consultant.. The developer hired. Mr Rena :o .G, _;Martinez;;, Traffic Engineering consultant,, - : prepare a traffic impact study. The conclusions of his report are: -3- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, 16, 1977 "The proposed development will,contribute to the-undesirable-traffic conditions on Wash ington-and �Elyi-_ However the incremental traffic associated with the proposed development . not be - the significant contribution that would • create, -.unfavo traif 1 * conditions.. From a,- traf f ic, standpoint,, ; is no reason why the.- should not be,permit'ted to proceed."• The'Traffi6,Eng.'ineering in-his analysisalso took into consideration lands,• that are: already i.commited to -use such, and Aldgrw o& Subdivision., Mr. Martinez Xecommended as -a. *relief rff6ds�ufe, that app.toac,hes, to -the -East Washington Street/Ely Blvd. intersect - on 'be to two lanes at.the earliest possible time. The Pla:nning'and Engineering Depart- ments concur with .:the ,conclusions; of-Mr. Martinez. The 'developers of this proposed project have developed similar pt6j:,ects in'. other areas land,'have":found that%,a project- of this size would generate. approx . i- mdte1y'.25 school age, children. The Sbnbma..Count,y Water Agen*cy has'indicated',that the Washington• . Creek Channel can adequately handle any runoff. A, project of this size and nature will certainly increase the ambient 'noise levels in'the'area; however, through adequate buffering with landscapiAg, .impact - up6n..neighVoriftg residences will be minimal and the no e i - impact f rom: _ neighboring uses upon the proposed project will be minimal. The, prop'osed - Vkbj'ect will alter the-present land use -of the area in that: it will provide residential density ."of,20 dwelling units 'per.. . acre • in - an'. area that has anaverage 'density of -five_dwelling units acre; however. the ..­ Planning Department does riot believe that _this_multi- family residential us&-,and the sing kamily residential use incompatible. The mful kesiden- tiaI stx.uc tur es:' are. .going to be -no higher than- W many of the:: s amily.. rdsi- den -teal area,. Thq,devOlo e ill-be - r�dquired to provide- at p least•a . 40-foot setback1from all ad j oining Te"s-ident I ial lots the developer will be provid'ing'.extbnsive landscaping along the adjoining residential lot lines,.. Also the t.raf f ic - generated,: by, this project will, mostly: 'use the ar- terial streets in the , *.area, not the local residential streets:, Ttig,re, will undoubtedly be a sociological impactupon:human beings in the area,. This impa.ct, cannot be accurately determined.; however there are -other` areas within Petaluma where mult-i"faiiiily residential deVelopments.-and single-family residenti velopments-are contiguous and without any significant e nviron merital,.effects...' The Planning..'staf f that pr6posed rezoning will not have a sig qi a n , t i mpact on t he on the -finding's,out-liried-in-the staff rep.ort, There are, 20 conditions recommended' by the 'Plahning . ',Some of the `con- d itIQns have been the. Site Design Review Committee or at' -leas't I .,amended by should be- discussed in, detail thig evening. The conditions in this ca'sev -sinc I e we are considering a 'PU Are - allowed to be applied, Comm. B . al.shaw questioned ,if'- the; ,commis,sio - n could - actually act ­ on, this as a zoning, qhange .,and' 'not as E,.`I.'IR.-. Mr. Hall stated that. e''have enough in- f ormation, ' 1. 6. the site plan-whi . ch was - submit.ted,- . .elevation plan, landscaping, -4- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, August-16,1977 etc. You also have the discretion to amend.the project if °you disagree with cert onnthe s 2 g . 3rd feeatures.. As the .Commission,is aware there_ p s a special hear g ` August. We could use the 23rd,Hearing date for final action • on the Rezoning. ',Comm. Wright mentioned that the, developer might want to make major changes in the.design. plan. Perhaps Comm., Balshaw has merit in ,what he .says. Comm. Balshaw added that the P. -U.D. is the one we can actually say this is the way it will be. We have control - over the ultimate development of that land. From my point of view, the Ordinance is read we don't have the map,showing t he,site. This is the staff plan. The previous viewfoil we were shown was the already eliminated original site design by the developer. I am aware that there is discussion going on regarding changes:. There hasn't been any time for the staff, developer and the residents to get together on this. I would hope the final action on this wouldn't be taken until,our meeting? of the 23rd. ,Mr..Hall stated there would no;t,.be any problem with that arrangement. -If final action is taken on the 23rd, this will still be prior to the time that it would.be brought back to the City Council. The Site Design Review Committee.indicated that Conditions No. 2, No. 13,.and No. 17 should be discussed in- depth by the full Commission. On,Condition.,No.... 7, the Site Design Review Committee.recommended' that the statement be changed to read "The City Planning Department shall review the on -site parking situa -, tion for the entire,pr-oject one,year after the project is completed or when the, pro.ject°is close .to full occupancy to determine if additional on -site parking is required. If the Planning Department determines that additional parking is necessary, the developer /management will proceed with providing additional on- site parking to the specifications of the Planning Department. The Site-Design Review Committee then requests..that the following conditiori be, • added (Condition No. 21) If the use of St. James Manor (elderly citizens..' . housing complex) should ever change to allow for..residents other than the elderly, _additional _ on-site parking must be provided to accommodate the needs of the:new use. Mr. Hall said that this statement doesn't take into. consideration the input,at the.City,Council meeting.of,August 15, 1977. The developer had responded to, the residents to indicate that there is control over.<these complexes and therefore'Condition No.. 21 may-not be necessary. Mr. Hall stated that -the, staff report was concluded.._.:Comm. Lavin commented that as .he read •the, specifications regarding the& establishing, of the P..U..D.; it leads. you to 'believe that a very concise, specific layout of the proposed, district should-be available -- that there should be a detailed .map a.land.use plan,, .a detail regarding the layout of the buildings, etc. He wonder' Comm Balshaw's t omment,.whether or not-we have enough data to act this, .- evening. Comm. Balshaw stated, that we, could probably act on, the E..I.Q /E ; I.R,.,, but he.wo.uld be.reluctant to consider the rezoning. Comm. Waite commented..that he believed the decision of whether the Co mmission.ac'ts on the rezoning.d'epends on .whether 'the developer comes before the Commission, with a map that claims; to be the :plan. So far,, we have, just .had. speculation about the project.-, Comm. Wright opened the .public hearing to consider E. I. Q,for.'decid,i_ng whether an E.I.R. will be-required or -not. Comm. Wright asked the.developer to come forward with, his comments. Mr. Roliert .Hirsch, 1523'3 Blvd.., Sherman Oaks, gave..the presentation. In terms of the developer, Mr. Hirsch asked .if he could apologize to the people -5- Petaluma City. Planning'.Commission, August 16, 1977 of * th6, commufiity.. it was theii intention to send people* in''the' immediate community and they wanted letter describing: the -development. " They could -no have been too bulky to m TMy took the - plans it "took arioth&t week and their mail'-packet didn I- t until Thursday. timely notice to all'• the to send .'them the pldh with a L send the -plans, ' it would to a'­,piintet; unfortunately, the-homeowners At the end of the meeting last night, he of thelhomeowners.. .There.were several that were-represented by the:homeowners. We ur- consideration -and as it has been have. tried', to -take hose concerns into b, stated, 'there -are .5 . 0 units of eldeily, !And , , , 5-a units of family. asilly, there i Basically, � ca ,are no (serious -re' se ions regarding the elder ly-development,, except : two ;• one b'eIng that the elderly development - 1a set=back 15 feet from the adjoining, p roperty roperty line. W87 can move, that and give a larger separation.- The only other , is§ue is the questllon`of the number of p-ark-ifig spaces. With respect- to the number of parking spaces, we can :comply with even-the full legal required parking as required by the code-of the City. We suggest that' if, your staff or Commission were check with many of the.'cities with HUD Elderly Project's,,.you will li that 'tfie'actual pariking use is , under one-quarter of - a - space per apartment..: 'We,'are dealing with .low-income fdld 6r ly. They,db, -riot have' the money; 'their gross income - is, in the 'neighborhood'of $350 a month,, and they pay-, us 5% of that, ': dpproximately.$90. It is a matter of economics -- they , :. d - on't the money-to.support cars. That 18" why, if the staf f eels they want -additional •parkixig above the' 15 spaces, 'we.will - be glad to-give them: the - additional - spaces . We`have plenty of landscape rarea-that we•can take out apd,.,, install additional asphalt,. We are agreeable.t.0 coming back a year after, and if they de additional - parking, we will create it.. 'We are also. recording a tohVenant and will furnish the City . Attorney,with a copy that has 'been used in -many cities ies that we are•in that should the use ever change from a. HUD 'Elderly Project, our permit' of occupancy is -to valid- and,. we would. have,to�.comply with full legal parking. We don't anticipate any change but that would I : - be a'ffeasure of protection for'the City. The' pr:fincip4l I seems to arise from the family portion•. The. portion is 5.0" two-Ve-drb6m 4,aftmehts.- . 'Sev&ral comments were expressed by the home- owner& last night about what we eould d6 to reduce the. total number of two-bedroom units and move them far enough-away from the ddjpfning sqngle- family neighbo'r's, and possibly - lower the height f rom two-stbfy< one-Story. The homeowne r s expressed that they would not be opposed to seeing,, along the Madib,dn- AVen:u.e. fr a . low.,profile one�story building. Taking all,these— comments, - in. mind' .1 -had, a meeting, this afternoon wi,th.HUD.. Although we were. talking about an award Of 50 elderly apartments. -and 50 family apartments, the maximum latitude that "HUD has in their, guidelines' is. to -deviate 10%' of the total number of units . as f ar as - t1i n9' ing the. -composition: - I have HUD's lati tulle to extend the commitment, that. we will take 6 total,- two-bedroom ;apartments 'to the - elderly. We :can take some elderly in away, from the family, adding, it two-'bedroom apaftitents.- That leaves - us with, a total of 44 two:-bedroom f amily; 9 'i units;. W& are willin to'take two buildings on ,Mad ison and, Drve and, change them from two-storyto dne-story. We will also put story element- use towards Madison - Thdt;:g,ive._s -us - . a total I of '.bne-story element separating single - fami ly neighbors - and awider, separation than Zhe* 15 f eet We are also coming'Aowh to 44 f amily apartments.- These. - f amily apartments -will have an average . of 1.05 children. Children. are def ined- ta ,age .18. - That would include 'high, 's chool age, . elementary school. a d' ,age and .infants �- -, Our l , , -po i - c cy.-is, one .child per I two-bedroom -apartment. HUD -:allow only -up to two children per . two-bedroom apartment, and only if the children are of the same sex. We prefer to stay with one child. -6 . - Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1977 Regarding Section 8 o.f.HUD regulations governing ;'family- type. apartmerits the tenant;ap.plies and is admitted based on his' income range,. 'A worker:, average • age 28;'employeed locally,, making: -$8,000 a year;, -25% of that, or'$2,000 a year, can be,paid for rent including all utilites,, which equals $166 a month as rent. Knowing, today's•construction.costs, expenses,, be impossible for an y to a two - bedroom apartment building °and•rent if for less than approximately $275 a month. Therefore, this young•famiiy'on their way up, typical husband/wife. one child, are somewhat - out of the•market in Peta- luma. This is why this development.has been chosen-by HUD. The City has had a citizens'- committee and�has been.looking`at sites and it has had an.ongoi.ng project for about two years,. The. City has a Housing Assistance Plan that they filed with HUD. HUD reviewed it and accepted it-. I would like to,get some indication from the - Planning Commission because,we have already spent considerable money on this development.. If you gentlemen feel that this is the wrong type of development, I.wo,uld. appreciate knowing that tonight. At this time, several members of the audience came•forward.to address the Commission. Jack Furr, 124 Rene Drive, stated that he :was; at the City'Council meeting last night.. He is, not •- against the elderly units but he doesn't. think that.the feelings of the people have been taken =ideration. He was also concerned that the parking area for St. James Church would be made smaller, and he.wondered where the cars•would park for Sunday Mass.. He.also that his property-would be adjoining the family . apartmerits -and to him that meant a'problem of keeping children out of his ;backyard. • Jackie,Poston, 1642 Lauren Drive, voiced concern over -the t- raf�fic on Lauren ' Drive.. Tom To "rborg, 133 Rene Drive,. presented the Commission. with a petition which .: reads: "We the undersigned residents -.of the area bounded by East .Madison Street and East-Washington Street respectfully petition the Petaluma City Planning Com- mission to register our opposition to the proposed• development oL lOQ. multi family; units located at 1650 'Ely - Road (behind St: James .Church) for_ the fol lowingi reasons : 1 • 1., The General Plan, adopted after much planning and expense, provided for this,.a-rea to be single = family dwellings; and 2. This project requires undesirable. spot: zoning for the, apparent. benefit., of developers; but is unfair to adjacent,property owners who purchased homes.in completely single - family dwelling area; and 3. This density development.will overload already crowded.streets in an area where two major.subdivisions (70 and.1,03.single= family dwellings,) are under construction; and 4. This federally -funded,�project..would•more'than likely turn.this area..into a slum b.ecause the - history of similar projects is a continuing battle-against, property damage-, muggings, robberies and street violence that hastens general deterioration-of-the-surrounding neighborhood; and -7- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, August 16, 1977 5. For these'and; many- ,other. reasons too nume.r,ous to'mentlon,,We respee.tfully petition this; lCommission 'to deny this' rezoning. and place these` proposed apart- ments in an area ,.;presently designated for them:" We the. peop.le in the neighborhood have been., andbagged into a position where it is'made:�to appear that we are opposing housing fo,r ~the elderly,!sen or cit zens, and low '.income. , We 'are only .suggesting tha't is not the place for the development. Del Woods, 132 Rene 'Drive, met with Mr. Hirsch last night and•trie'd to relate his feelings and what his neighbors had said to him:, The 'school si.'tuation...on the east side is changing. It is his under._staidi.ng .'that a.ccordi -ng to educa- tional•code No. ,37511, it is required that the School District-gives every parent the 'choice whether his child is; in the traditional school calendar year or the 4'5/15. Bernard Eldrege and 01d Adobe are full, . There is room in other schools: With the-other subdivisions going 'in, I :think it' is something, that needs to be looked into:. He.suggested that you delay, action so that a committee of our neighbors:cou.l.d be ,given a list of all these 10,000' units and - we 'could- visit them and isee for ourselves what kind of development we are talking about. Comm. Balshaw.mentioned -;ttiat he had asked the City Manager to check with other communities to see where these other developments are. located :a ' nd` what, "- 'their exact status is. Larry Jonas addressed the Commission and.sa d that he had:always considered the E.D_P. 'and' G:P., sacred in -a sense, and , .when.'you talk about changing in the' f'a'ce of such major, opposition, `he, could"n't•see changing the plan. Diagonally across the street from the development are 13 acres that are zoned commercial. that will generate traffic into the area. Where are -tale senior citizens who are saying that they want •to live on the east side after spending their whole lives on , the west :side. Let- the ' senior citi- zens come forward and say that they want to live there. Are we.making the de'ci'sion for , someone else. Let's ask them; let's get their input. Gary Hile, '136 Rene Drive, was 6onterned about 'segregating the elderly from the young and the,low- income moderate- income families from the rest iof ; the com- munity: 'You.sho.uld integrate single - family dwellings and-low-income-family units and elderly units together in-a pleasing.design where everyone can learn to live together. The next speaker was Father Clary, Pastor, St. James Church: He stated that he b'el'ieved St., James Church has suffered because of this development'. The legal owner - of the St. - James property is the - Roman. Catholic Bishop of - Santa Rosa. He and his staff have nothing at all to do with the project... He met with Mr. Hirsch for the first time last night. Comm.•Wtight asked Father Clary about the parking situation. Father Clary stated' that • they are dealing' with 'people -who - commute. 10 hours a .week to live ,,in. the City of Petaluma. St James tries-to provide-parking_ for the parish.oners......_ There is a traffic problem on Sunday and also.on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, with 800 childr- en.en- rolled :i.n•CCD .religion. classes: Anyone who would think that. °there is no traffic problem at the corner of`. Ely and. East Washington obviously- haven't been around. It-is going to be more dangerous when it be comes:a four -lane street. We''h.ave Mass: at 7:'-00, 9:00; 10.;30 and. 12:,00. on { Petaluma City Planning Commission. Minutes,, August 16 1977 Sunday., The developer has assured :St. James that if any parking area.is taken. away it will be replaced. They want-to p;ut , the parkiiig-�ar.ea. ,over � by Madison StreetJ: The winds blow, from the. northwest, but. doors from the west and east; therefore, we•cannot- properly he.at.the church.. Wayne­Roll:an, 1640 Joan Drive,; ask'ed.Mr> Hirsch how .he -could guarantee that. the development would•. not bring in.�people from outside the".'-area . to live in the development. Mr. kollan said - that Mr. Hirsch to :ld ° °him ~he was going ,go through the Catholic a :list and "-through the City. Mr. Rollan.,stated that ev.id"entlysomeone..n.Santa Rosa has made some agreement with the developer that the residents are not -aware of. Bill Maple, 1641 Lauren Drive, asked.Mr. Hirsch if he had purchased the land, and ifj.so, how much,did he purchase the land for. Mr. Hirsch came forward and statedithat they have not purchased the land, but they have an agreement to purcha,'se it. The Bishop is person that they dealt with and is the one that asked 'that the development be.named St. James Manor, St. James Gardens. He also indicated that the Church would act as a resource to provide us with a list. .+ I feel that a staff problem exists between Father Clary and the Bishop. Mr. Hirsch said that he is not suggesting that it doesn't happen in other businesses, but it was.not his responsibility to contact Father Clary and fill him in on the details of. the project. Mr. Hirsch did not-wish to disclose the purchase price. The Church- :feels that the development will be of benefit both to the.Church - and to the social conscience -of the community. Comm. .Wright asked that the public comment be kept on the subject.of the E-.I..R. Mr. Jim Walsh; 1616'Joan: asked-where thew- ternative locations were asked whether the Planning Commission has conszdered,separating the development • by having the 'senior citizen units in one•location.and the -low income units in another. Mr. Hall answered that many alternate sites were reviewed and were rejected either because -they were not available ;o "r not-suitable." is a definite problem in the City of.Petaluma in finding proper space. It is very difficult to find good sites., particularly on the­..'.west -side of the City. This area -was determined to be the �best.of the sites Comm. Balshaw stated that he had visited with the HUD Offices and asked if-the development could be split.' We cannot split the project. CaroliStrase,.1720 East Madison, asked whether or not the residents•of this development -would be allowed to-have-pets. Mr. Hirsch stated'.that they do not allow pets. Mr,. Bev ss,,who lives on the corner of East Madison and.Ely, stated that he believed that the Commission did:not have.sufficent, information to approve or not re "quire an E.I.R. He also-stated that there was-no way this plan provided for legal parking. Mr. Beviss asked Mr. Ron Hall to read the specific conclusion from the traffic engineering study. You cannot disregard the impact of the developments in the area. Ron Hall again read the-opening statement from the Taffic Study Report. The proposed development will contribute-to the undesrable.traff -ic conditions on Washington and Ely; however,. the incremental traffic associated -with the.pro posedIdevelopment would not be the significant contribution that would create unfavorable traffic conditions. From a traffic standpoint;. there is no reason • why the project should not be permitted to proceed. Mr. Hall indicated that all of the .land committed to use has been considered and Mr. Martinez's analysis. Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, August 1'6, 1977 Mr. Charles McKay, 1637 Jeffery Drive, questioned the policy in the City and the consideration of .the design of this p:lan, He was asking about bus service for the people:who will not own cars in the'.development. He also asked whether �. the developer would be required to provide - a -well for the development'as other developers have.been required to-do during the 1977 construction year. A woman representing her family, which she described as a low = income family, stated that no one ever asked them if they wanted low ifn.cbme housing in _Peta- luma, She atated that they ,di:d ; not_ want , to be isolated in-an area of low income. houses,., She believes that - Petaluma offers a chance. to low = income fami- lies to get - along on their own. Cli=ff Kohl, 1729 Pine Avenue, was concerned about traffic and pedestrian safety. Victor Irvine,; 2237 Parkland, asked if anyone considered the traffic generated by the -Free ;Will Baptist Church., also - th'e •'fact ghat the street. lighting ;at. the intersection , ,i.s , .very poor. He also asked.Mr.. Hirsch if he: plans to get-low income people from the.area or bring them in from other cities. Mr; Hirseh . answered that there is need in the City's Housing.Plan. There is no List.. that has been solicited by the develo.per-as of this date. Oliver'Egan of Ely Blvd. stated that the parishoners of St:.James Parish are against the project because of the traffic: problem. Ken Thomas, 'Ely Blvd., voiced additional-concern over-the traffic problem. He mentioned also -the fact that the 20- foot:.dr.i,veway wou.l.d'be insufficent for cars pulling in off.the street. Mr. Thomas•also• mentioned that'his child is able to attend LaTerc:era- Schoo1,, whi,ch.is the closest school to his home be- cause there: is no room. The additi:ohal , deve.lopment in the area will have a significant impaet.i.n regard :to the traffic generated. Marilyn. Hoff,-17 -08 East Madison was concerned with the. traffic increase in, the area.: mki, Vi•vas, 1745 ,East Madison, Voiced additional. -concern regarding the traffic and speeding -in area, and fact that, there .are -no sidewalks.,. Comm. Wright mentioned that the developer will be required to install sidewalks and street improvements.. Captain Johri•Ki'lpack, 13.5 Rene Drive., stated that he:bought-his home because of the zoning- of.the area and mentioned that Petaluma is.now.know wor- ldwide as a' city .•because.of. out growth,, control. He could not understand why last year we were told there wasn't enough water and now this year we -need high density housing He. could not understand why the City Council could- a.gree.so quickly to rezone the area with such .little debate. G'e'orge.Angf'ore istated his main. concern in .buying a house -was, knowing his °family would be safe,.while he was working at:night. I.n 11 months he has ,bad , no prob- lem with vandalism. George Wells, Joan .Drive, mentioned - that'f -ive or 'six of - the people 1n the neighborhood were from areas i:n + San ..Francisco where there, was .low- :nc.ome housing. When they moved-to the City of Petaluma.t.hey knew what the zoning of the area was. All of a sudden the area is•going'to be rezoned. You are deal- ing with i ndividuals and families with feelings, We need the to look,at these points when you vote on the rezoning. -10- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, August 16, 19,77 Another person asked if we really need HUD in Petaluma and asked Mr. Hirsch to look elsewhere for locations for this development. Mr. Hirsch responded saying that he suggested that since you are discussing the environmental issue, the people`have. concerned themselves with traffic and children,in schools. Again, he said.that the development was not adding a significant effect on.the environment on these issues. There is a report from a registered traffic engineer. Any traffic engineer will give the same report.. We have a. substantial mitigation ' measure in regard to the traffic situation. Widening -the street will make the street 100 feet.. It is presently 30 to 35 feet now. I am sure there. are present problems in respect to the schools. Wilson Wiles, the State Superintendent of Instruction, has said they will, serve every °,child in every development built -in California.; Children resulting from our development are not - creating a significant effect the environment. I hear rio objection tonight regarding-the elderly units; I do hear a social. issue that I do not -wish to discuss tonight. I hope you -will concern yourselves with the E R. Comm..Wright closed the public hearing. I Comm. Balshaw stated that he would like to have the City Traffic Engineer say that he agrees with the findings of the traffic study. Mr. Hall stated that the City's Engineering Department agrees with the conclusions of the study according to their memo. At this time, Mr. Hall read Mr. Ernie Bennett's letter into the records. It was concerned with the senior citizen units, particularly that the units should be one =floor units and the fact that the senior apartments -are located at the back of the property; therefore, necessitating',a long walk to the bus stop. Mr. Bennett mentioned -the fact that Sonoma County has the largest ratio of senior; citizens to the total population im the area.. Comm. Lavin -made referencetto the traffic survey which was not.made on the basis,;of an on -site inspection. It would seem desirable that some review of the traffic situation sh.ou:l:d take place. He thought %it was not fair to desig- nate this particular development -.as the primary cause' :of this specific traffic problem since the comments tonight indicate•l.)_the. problems preexisting and 2) it will be aggravated by the dwellings independent of this particular use. At some point; we have.to review impact of continuing decisions, one after the other.. Mr. Hall mentioned that the traffic engineer looks at a street from a standpoint of capacity accommodation. From that standpoint, this project can be accommodated and will not add a significant problem. 'You are going to have to have situations at times and for reason, the traffic engi- neer at it from the standpoint-of whether- the particular road will sustain the additional traffic. The conclusions are based on that particular line of reasoning. Comm. Wright went on to ask about the parking. There are so many people that attend St. James•Church. With t:h'is project, he was won - dering where these cars -are going to go. Comm. Balshaw. said he was aware of the concerns of the residents. He hates-to see -us ,take away a senior citizens' housing project in an all or nothing situation. There .are senior citizen housing needs. We are in a position of- voting on the whole thing or voting on nothing. He would Pike to see the zoning portion brought back with an option. I think.the Planning Commission and the -City Council could accept the senior citizen units. I would like to see the City offered-an alt;ernativetif pos- sible Comm. Wright asked if there was-a comment from the School District in the staff report. Mr. Hall explained that the potential school children can be accommodated, but perhaps not in a particular school. There was no specific comment from the School District. _11- Petaluma City'Planning Commission Minutes, August 16, 1977 Comm. Waite.said that some.po nt in time, it becomesidi:f.fi.cu.lt.to decide when a Negative Declaration o "r a f- u:ll. i 'required I have to 1 obk at -it as a total project and what] am going to do two weeks from now. I wi..l oppose. the PUD rezoning when it comes along, and because of that, I wouldn want to lead the developer to believe that. if he supplies an E.I.R with mitigative measures he might get the go ahead on.•th. s project. I am willing to accept the Negative Declaration tonight with'th:e understanding that I will. - , oppose the PUD rezoni,rig when it comes before the Commission. Comm. Waite moved -to direct the Planning Director to prepare•a.nd'.post a Nega- tive Declaration for the. project. The.moaion' was seconded by Mr. Balshaw who stated that : he.shared -C'omm. Waite's opinion regarding the rezoning. AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3 Comm. Wright stated that he also plans to vote against the rezoning. Comm. Wright stated that the public hearing. on the PUD will be continued to 7 :3.0 p.m. August 23,, 1977. WALTER KIECKHEFER- Mr. Hall, opened the discussion describing the project; EIQ EVALUATION/USE as follows: E:,I�Q. Evaluation, Use, Permit Reques.t'a °nd PERMIT /SITE DESIGN Site Design Review of a shopping center' to be located 'REVIEW: at the northwest corner of Lakeville and East. Washing- ton Streets. Since the'Architectural. and Site Design Review; Committee Meeting of July 18, 1977, the staff has worked closely with the applicant -to develop a more':aes thetical -ly pleasing' and functional set of plans. The. app :.icant; has cooperated in every way to substantial.ly mitigate the problems associated, with-the.-parking lot and. Building "B ": Grand Auto representatives:, however, were not until recently, w- -fling to make any of the recommended alterations to the -orientation appearaice or loading facilities of the'Grand.Auto Bui.l.d.ing. However they have now agreed to certain changes. The site is vacant; it is .surrounded by railroad tracks an,d a •prop,os:e.d Kragen. Auto Supply Store to the ear >t; the Train 'Station to • the • so,uth, Diamond Na-t, onal. to the'�:west, and an industrial `facility to the north. Phase I'.includes the parking lot and two, commercial buildings designed to faci.lita,te-pan auto supply and service 'store, various shops for paint, hardware and home improvement stores- -and housewares. Phase I is irregular shaped with an area • of 2.3 acres. Building "'A"' contai.ns 10,200 square feet' of floor ake.a and is .to. be occupied by Grand Au;to;. Building "B" -contains -7, 700 square feet and is 'to be occupied by unknown ° utu:r;e tenants e The rear. yard ,setback of Building -''B" measures seven •feet, - where the Zoning Ordinance requires at. - least. -10 feet•. The !staff strongly recommends that the- exterior and /or orientation of the Grand Auto `Build `ng^ be redesigned An attractive and healthy arrangement of of land'scap'e mat!e.r al, is proposed. The plan is highlighted by' an, intricately _ . walkway and .a decorative. s'easonal.•f'lower bede `The walkway includes an interesting plant and bench arrangement which will add. to the convenience safety and appearance of • the parking .lot,. -12'- Petaluma City Plann,ing;'Commission Minutes, August l6, 1977 Site plans indicate 113 parking ;spaces, where only 4'0 are required by'the Zoning' Ordinance; All. paces are. conveniently, acce'ssib'le-,. Loading. for Building ".B" is suffcientl located on the opposte. side of the drive A':functional outdoor lighting system is proposed. An indication of­the intended s ±gn program has been - provided; but detailed plans have not been.submitted':: - Staff .felt that all environmental concerns indicated in- the.staff report would not be detrimental - . or be oconsid'ered an impact on the . environment. It' 'was recommended that the Commission direct the pos;ting,of: :a Negative Declaration. based on the following mitigating measures and 'findingsE I. The roof, design bf -the drand Auto `Buildin •shall be slignif ieantly re° modi - fied to reflect the desl.gn,.o,f Building B -The- garage doors on the Grand Auto Building •shall 'be 'redesigned- in' a more •decorative and 'des'theti6ally pleasing manner! All architectural modifications sha I b— subj :ect to approval by the Planning Director, f hdirigs` . 1: "Topographic al't,er'at ons 'would be minimal. 2. The'pr:opb"sal can be 'adequately 'accommodated .by existing- .storm.'dra'inage facilities. 3. Sufficient f -food hazard 'Protect-16n will 're ui - red by the 'Chief ' Building Inspector and the Sonoma : County Water:Agency'.,- 4. The - demand for `additional hotising! generated by - Future employees will be minimal: _ 5 . t a edmagnitud : was desi to .accomm0d''Lte' ro'ect''`of the g y g a ., p � 6. ''The need. for 'additional police "and -f re protection 'will be minimal. 7. All s nfcant g •.and acs thetic qua I will be mitigated. The staff 'recommendszap.pr'oval of_-the Use Permit subect' to the following con- di - s and findings '1: Condition No. l of the 'E.I;.Q: Negative Declar,atori shall be "required. 2. The Grand Autq 'Bulld_ing and Building "B "'.shall be Moved•toget,,er':and joined by a common wall.. The Grand Bulding;shall.be moved 10 feet to the right arid: the proposed loading berth shall be relocated along the'1eft side of the building. 3, ` .Due 'to the 'limited access availaft!e to thet shopping •center, 'the 'proposed future restaurant shall not be a high.volune, rapid turnover, t- raffie genera - -13- <y ,Petaluma City Planning .Commission Minutes, - August 16,'.1977 4. Trees:-planted near , the right:.s de of -the ,pxpperty 'line shall, not be ,allowed to grow into areas specified by the °Northwe's'tern Pacific' =.Railr -oad, '(Northwestern p Pacific Railroad). '5. Window signs in the Grand Auto Building shall be located in a nine foot wide center .row of windows only: Such ..signs shall conform ;with, the provisions , of the Sign Ordin`ance.in.ef_fect. at "the time of ,use.. Site `Design :Evalua :tion and Recommendations: The staff .recommends -app:roval of the .s ; te design, subject to the following conditions. 1. A11 conditions of the E. I.,Q.'Negative:De_claration.and Use_'P,ermit shall be required. 2. Building "-B " shall be set back at least 10 feet from the rear property line (Sdction 13- 600),. ;'3.' All loading berths and garage entrance's shall.be- adequately screened_ from East 'Washington :Street `Lakeville .Street and the major parking .ar;ea (Section. 2 0;1010 )':. 4.' One parking. space. measuring, at least -12 feet by 20. feet and designated for use'by handicapped.persons shall be located next -to Building "B''',as` indicated on :Exh bi'.t, "A". All parking spaces- 'for the handicapped shall .be- .accompanied with appropriate ramps for wheel chair access `to each building; Iraq. compac_ t car parking spaces shall be provided In ftont of.Building, "B" to allow for greater maneuverability on the,main drive:: 'sign ,A detailed program shall be submitted to the, .Planning; ,Director for review and. approval -.prior to' the issuance of a building permit. 6. All grading„ excavating, and import,- fil1,shall.:comply with Chapter •70 'of. the 1973 Uniform Building Code (.Chie .Bu 'lding, Inspector) , T. A-11. floor levels 'Shall- 'be situated at least .one foot :above: the 100 -yiear floo,d level ,of-the Petaluma River (Sonoma County Water Agency).: 8. All electrical and mechanical equipment. -and trash enclosures shall be s'cr'eened in 'a manner deemed appropriate by the - Planning Director. 9. All shrub=s no used as, groundcover shall be five gallon minimum size and all trees shall 'be at, leas:-, 15 gallons. Pla & •indi g catina r=evised .irrigation system shall be submitted to the Planning Director f'or•review'and,..approval prior to•the,issuan'ce: of a building permit:. 10. ;Exterior lighting shall be ;int,eg-rated into the -building architecture in a mariner' de`emed,.app,ropriate by the, Planning Director. 11. All driveways shall be constructed to, City standards; .(City Engineer). 12. Two fire hydrants, with 'a ,combined fire flow capacity of 2,:250 gallons. per minute shall. be installed. Both hydrants- shall be equipp,ed with d 2 inch and. single -12 inch outlets (Eire Chief),., • 13. The ap ;plicant*shall comply with,all, other appl- icable.City regulations. Y �e • Petaluma City :Planning Commission Mnute.s:,.August. 16, 1977 _ Comm.AWright opened the public hearing. Mr Victor DeCarli, who owns property adjoining the- proposed development, addressed the Commission;. He that. a problem 'will, be' created regarding access to his own property: Mr DeCar i. was concerned about the position of the driveways•located on East.Washington Street In fact., he stated that he would, Aike to .see • on of the driveways eliminated,, since he 4elt it Would be a hazard to slow moving ; traf -fic. He also voiced concerh•tegarding the layout of the ,buildings. Mr. K eckhefer came forward and :described the bui- ldin.g layout and indicated that "Mr: DeCarli,will. have frontage all °the way down on East Washington Street, which- is •an .improved street: Taking this into consideration, there +.should be no Mr. DeCarli cannot have.access to his property without creating traffic problems.. Mr. K:ieckhefer stated further that they had good :sessi.ons. with the staff and are satisfied with the - recommendations and sugges:tions.- Comm.!Wright closed the public ,- hearing. Comm..- Wright also asked for clari.fi- cation of -the chang n g s that ererequired in the design and building layout. c on tin ued down the entire length of the building, and the ,doors will. not be plain steel roll up: type., .Therefore,• they -.will not look so much like warehouse. doors.. The..staf;f also required an additional isle of trees,jgr landscaping. Grand Auto stated that the fac'ing their repair sec- tion towards Washington S'treet,,was necessary for the success of this project. The staff reluctantly. went along With this:s on It was also mentioned that ;these buildings are the barest minimum that could be accepted for the downtown area,. Comm. Wright - indicated he was dismayed and' still,.feels that they should not•come i.n,wi.th tilt up concrete walls for build ' ings in this area.. The developers. are only going as far as -they are 'required to make, these buildings acceptable. Comm. Wright said ' he - def nite.ly would have preferred a better design. .Comm.'Lavin. asked if this Grand.Auto,Store ° would•be a:repair facility. Comma Wright stated that the store sells parts and that the. can installed by a Grand Auto mechanics: Comm.,'Balshaw asked what. the . pr.oblem was with having access.on,East Washington Street; near- the railroad .tracks;.. Mr. Kiec answered 'that. the railroad has not allowed access, .crossing the ; tracks as 'a safety, measure. :and,, also. _.as a means of ;moving the trains through the town without delay: Comm. Balsh'aw also asked Mr. 'Kieckhefe.r if-he was willing to .aceepa. the right :turn only: exit, . Mr. Kieckhe.f'er stated that ;he needed a left turn a'llowe'd', Comm, Balshaw stated lie felt a left: turn .would , be ;hazardous. Again he staged the'City has received the bare minimum from the' on this project:; and he did riot:. think we, should accept. what considered -t:o, be a substandard traffic situation or substandard aesthetics:. Mr. 'Kieckhefet pointed ou that the City has ifisisted that they keep the only entrance'to the west because of :the a,c_ti- vity of the railroad dr. op,,gates. s and the intersection of -- Lakeville, and :East Washington. Comm. Waite that East Washington is well, engineered. street 'and he direct the Planning,Director to•;prepare and -post a Negative Deciar,ari moved to A left _turn Comm. Lav felt 't would be unreasonable not to allow t.ion for• the project. w h the. stipulation that the traffic situation will be reviewed 'at the -15 Petaluma City Planning Commission'Minutes, August 16' 1,977 end of - three and six months to s,e-e, -if - left `turn °action should be. prohibited. Comm Balshaw °suggested that Mr: Lavin'.s motion should leave the 'time period open, f'or determining if , the left 'turn action .is hazardous. Comm. Waite asked if it was possible to make•conditiohs. on a ,Neg :t -qe 'Decla"r-ation., Mr. Hall explairied.'that this could be a condition 'that •will be imposed under site design review you are .iii fact justifying, the Negative Declaration.. The. motion was seconded by Comm. Waite. AYES 4 NOES 0'" ABSENT' 3 Comm. Wright opened the hearing on, the .Use Permit. Mr. DeC_arli stated under the Use P'ermi't,, he would. recommend against the two driveways being °located ;so close, t'o' his property: He feels, that having "the driveways adjoining h siproperty would dis allow ,him from having acces's on Washington Str.eet, Mr. Hall commented.. that ;Mr. be-Gar- was no't being prohi- b,'ted. from having access to his property.- Ms. Janie Warman addressed the 'Commission stating that she has looked at -the- - ... . economic impact" of this development on this particular area. We. shouldaen courage viab business for. the ;4owntown area.. This locat on is important, since it is the �entrarice to the downtown .area from the eas side .of` Petaluma.. Viable business should' be "encouraged to develop. 'Ms. Warman. en courag'ed the Commission-to look carefully it this area for•possible future developmen •. Comm: Wright closed the public hearing ". Comm Balshaw questioned the landscaping °plans in rega "rd to. the ;size' and type- • of trees.• He also advised that inathe,future he will ;insist .on landscaping designs that' are of a size and nature, to: be pleasing - to ey.e. He does not want to see-a lot of sapp'ling trees. Comm. Lavin" asked 'f'or elarificatiom ,on.'the auto: repair aspect �of 'the. 'Grand` Auto St ore, and also' "what the buildings propos'ed in -the future phases= of .development could be expected to be. Mr. Kieckhefer answered that he would like to see, a store along 'the, :lines; of Handyman or Grostian l s' go in and that he . would prefer' a bank 'or',sav ngs and loan establishment 'to go in in plane o'f'.the :restaurant Comm Wright stat'ed'that the Ci=ty will monitor 'traffic conditions and'-will. posit: right torn only U necessary,; With these conditions t'o the Use Permit he asked_ . If there, could be a motion. : Comm., Balshaw moved to- -grant the 'Use ;Permit with the condition that the City monitor the traffic situation. Motion was seconded by' Comm.' Lavin. 9YES' 4 NOES. 0' ABSENT 3 At this' time; the° Commission. voted unanimously to continue -the meet until 1'2:00` midriigh't ;: Regarding the app.r of the site design,; Comm'. Lavin mentioned' that he would f eel ,more stable if ;there was -a plan available that indicated what could be expected of the area. Mt,. Carson Bowler,. the Project Archit ect, reviewed the plans with the members of the Commission and Mr..Kleckhefer.. 'Comm. Wright again .:stated he was not pleased with •the looks 01 'the, buildings., Comm. Balshaw mentioned that lie .feels when the• staff report, is prepared, the a'rchit'ect seems to pay-more at to what the City is;xequir,ing: Comm: Wright 'said that =16- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, August 16, 1971 pg"ssi ° bly' it might 'be ,a g "odd idea to have the site. desi=gn : review `a week before ssion Ven abyssomeonehelse'•ssschedule. t If st the tom- m pparent to developers that if they do not-have their plans in by a Wednesday, the project would'�'be delayed another two weeks Perhaps we could have'.better time to work out the reports, and' presentations. Comm:: Waite moved 'to "approve the site- design with conditions Of-approval as recommended by the staff 'and concurred with by the : Ar_chitectural, and Site Design Review Committee. The ''notion was seconded'by_Comm:,Lavin. AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT`, 3 FOURTH - DISTRICT Mr,. Hall reviewed the staff report for the members of AGRICULTURAL ASS:QC.. "= 'th.e Commission.. � EIQ EVALAUTION /USt PERMIT, CONTINUED': Th_e subject property is the•.Sonoma= Marin,Fai- tgrounds and i "s ,surroun_ oed. by the Petaluma. Swim Kenil- worth�Recr:eatiori Cent'er the Petaluma Public Library, single- family and multi- family units across - P.Avran Street, Kenilworth Junior. High School and light , industrial uses to the southeast. There is ample -area for off- street parking for the temporary - uses that are - proposed. must apply for a sign �permto y temporary � � ch require signing The " istin signs well remain and an. tem ora.r uses whi, The notice of public hearing on this Us.e.Permit was VI-aced in the Argus Courier, and as of :August `9 .192,7;; no comments have been receivedq. The Planning_ staff reviewed,- the.environmental assessment on the proposed Use Permit. Since most. of ,the uses inel.uded'.lawe operated.as temporary uses at the Fair- grounds for many years-�andhave hot created significant adverse environmental. posting g ^ gat ye Decaa- ration h for the Use - "Permit- Cbased On t the followin find .` im pacts, g Depa rtment l No si.giif cant: adverse environmental impacts are anticipated by reviewing agencies,. Z. All uses will. be temporary. 3 Most`_ of,,. the-1u . s e:s will' be, Separated from. heighboring residences by At-least No feet. S The ' P lanning. Department, recommends - that:the Planning Commission make the neces- sary,findings and approve the Use Permit for the Fourth District Agricul ura.l Association to allow the uses subject 'to, the follow nd ng coitions: 1. This Use 'Permit: Shall expire if not used with-in 'one :year from date of this resolution without' further notification.. 2. 'The Use Permit shall be revised every three years: 17' '�� Petaluma ,City Planning Commission Minuted;. August 1,6, 1977 ^' 3. If any of the approved uses are deemed-to be a.nuisance City of Petaluma Municipal Code - or•Zoning Ordinance., that particular use shall be abated. 4, Uses that reg'uir,e signs which are visible from nearby stree sand property shall require sign permits,. 5. Any new permanent structures on the Fairground property shall require. architectural,and.site, design ,review approval: 6. Any outdoor activities shall.. maintain at leas t - 20 07 feet distance from the. Payran SIr.eet property line. Comm. 4right:opened the - public hearing., M's. Beverly 'Wilson addressed the-Commission and' , outlined the uses of the 'Fair- grounds and, the •fact that the Rai- rgrounds operates 'on. ' a budget: of $2.50,00'0 a year, of which only $65•,000 •s received,from the State towards the Fairgrounds:" expenses. The remainder of the money must supplied from outside sources of r,evenue.. The Fairgrounds donates its facilities free of charge. to l.ocal `yout:h groups such as 4 =H and FFA. Regarding--the nuisance factor, ;,Mrs. Wilson) stated _ that rock and roll dances had been p ,e canee•lled because of a noise- ro.blem . Tb Fairgrounds 'tries not be a nuisance factor:. Mr, Vic;to,r 'D'eCar,l_ .address.ed the Commission: stating that'he is . a neighbor of 'the Fairgrounds, and has: never had any problems .with of the Fairgrounds' l activities: Comm-: Wright closed `the public. hearing. Comm,. Waite,moved to direct the,- Planning Director -to. prepare =and post a Nega- tkwe Declaration -. 'The ;motion was seconded •by.•C`omm. Lavin: AYE8 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3 Comm'. Wright opened °the •public, hearing, for `the- Use Permit. There was. -no public testimony. Comm,. Wright closed the public hearing. Comm. Waite••moved• to- grant the Use Permit,,,; • subj to rec'orimendat.ions.. The motion was seconded by Comm,. Lavi n,. AYES •4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3 LELAND LINDEBECK - -EIQ Comm,, Wright opened, the public hear -ing. There was no EVALUATION -AND REQUEST, public_ estimony: The public. hearing was closed: FOR MODIFICATION. TO Comm. Ba moved. -to direct the Planning Director to THE SUBDIVISION prepare and post a Negative Declaration, The motion .'ORDINANCE /T VAtiLEJO. was se'c'onded' by .Comm.. Waite- STREET " AYES: f 4 NOES 10 ABSENT 3 Comm.. 'Waite made. a motion :to grant' the, modification• "toy the Subdivision ;.Qrdi.nance for No': 12 'Vallej o Street.- Comm: Balshaw seconded - the motion. AYES' 4' NOES'. 0" ABSENT 3 '�� A Petaluma City-Planning, Commis,si6n kfinu,t0§,'Augus't 16, 1977 �ght EDWIN SQUIRE - FOR Comm. Wr ;opened public hear' in Th e, erwas no .: i op -4 ,WESTERN DAIRY.. blic te, timo Y s , ny in regard to the E.I.Q. Evaluation. P.-RODUCTS—II9 The publir-hearing,was closed. EVALU ATION /VARIANCE . REQUEST,/SITE DESIGN Comm!. Waite moved to direct, the Planning Director to REVIEW.: prepare and,.'�ost 4 Negative, Declaration. The,motion was seconded. by Comm. .,Lavin. AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3 Comm. Wright opened the - public., hearing in regard to the variance request. Comm.:'Waite'asked for clarification regarding the property layout.. Mr. Squire indicated on the viewfoil the area w be-ddveloped,an . d 'what building's* would eventually be removed,. There were e no other comments'. The public hearing was closed. .Comm., ;Lavin m oved to grant 'the variance request subject to the conditions recommended,by the staff., !Motion was seconded by Comm. BAlshaw. AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3 Comm. Wright -opened-the-public hearing in regard to.the'site-design review There was no public testimony and the'public 'hearing was closed.' Comm. Lavin moved to approve the site designrwith,cohditions of approval as recommended by the staff sand - concurred with by the.Site Design ReView'.Committee. Comm.'-Waite seconded the motion. AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT. 3 Comm. Wright stated. that since it was now 12:0,9 mid I night, the agenda item for Aubrey,Sanderson and'the Big "R" Project be continued ',, to 7:30 p.m.', August*.23, i.- . 1977. Mr:'.' 'Hall stated that. DOI, Davis and 'had, not brought in'their f inal report on the E ) I ..rR,. f or the p ! ropo : sed'.planne residential subdivision on Ely Blvd. Therefore,, this item will be continued to 7:30 p.m. on September 7, 19,77. The meeting was adjourne&at 12:07 a.m. Attest: -19-