Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/24/1977M N U T E S PETALUMA PLANNING; COMMISSION-' AUGUST' 24 1977 - ADJOURNED MEETING 7::30 P.M. rr- CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS; CITY -HALL' PETALUMA-,-CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm. Bdig,haw, Heiid 'Horciza, tavlfi' She arer', WAite, Wright* ABSENT'• None 1. ,I' . STAFF Ronald - F. Hall, , Planning Director P. Lawrencezkiose, Attorney . .Wayne P. Planner ROMAN.CATHOLIC'BISHOP Comm. Wright explained that this was ' continuance of OF SANTA R'OSA/GOLDkI ' 6H,� the meeting of August"23.',- 19.77 consider 'the Roman .KEST ASSOC.-REZONING' 'Catholic Bishop of Santa. Rosa' and, G61drich, Kest & - REQUEST: Associates rezoning of apprbximate'ly' 5= acres 16cated' (Cont nued),. 'be 1650 Ely Bivd. from , R , - -6,500 to PUD, Planned Unit. Dist . i q �ict to' alfoV" f or 100 units 'fora young and elderly low-income project. The'Ptthlic Hearing was closed and 'a discussion woul-O'be held by the Commissioners. Balshaw stated' ; t had been his 'intention to ' clarify a lot of thee = items, Comm.1 partidulaily.traffic, and access, to the property and the 'benefits derived from commun but the senior housing in the�communi this project.. There. is a need for intended beneficiaries did not car enough about A to co ' nirnent. The biggest i mpa . ct!, to. him was the st Bonnie . - Holy:bee that sometimes when You- - don't have much money you 'still have a'lot.of Pride. Maybe the elderly and the'so- c do not want to be segregated. Comm. Balshaw stated that if a p rojel is not accepted ed 'b' a communi t y, i doesn't sta much of a' cha�ice`.: - - Not ,t . cc e s tn , nly this project,, but e entire concept . of clustered subsidiz`ed�housing 'needs to , el rev - ie . wed' by''the,City Council' and the community." Thi� mistake was�,. - that - he community was not made' a- Part of 'the project in the first place. Comm. .Head stated the City has'anempted in 'the Past to encourage private development to provide low cost. housi`n This' type-of encouragement is not . It. economically feasible in.this,d'ay and age. The private developer with private capital is unable to provide the type of housing that' the' low-income-and senior citizens require., Under the circumstances, the - on'ly! , alternative we 'have': to provide , adequate q , e facilities fbf the people`�wIfo do need them is" . . It' - government,subsidizies. ' This is 'the',only 'sou'hd­'wa -are able to afford adequate housin g 'these pe6pl'e. 'The:'senior ` citizens hav'6 contributed to the community all through their working life and alj6t-of'them have b6en- out of their homes because of the high property, taxes. Whatever is done in a community is going, to hurt someone. la'--rememb 'the phrase -"Do unto o thers, others do" unto y'durs6ll L o u a R smuss'en,.Citizens Advisory Committee, asked to be heard; _Comm. Wright informed 'Mr. Rdi-,mussen the'pdblkd, hearing' was closed. Comm.; Horciz . a ;stated that after hearing the various - te . sti*ony", it appeared that there are, . many . problems' due to the configuration of the project' because of the access and the neighbors. - 140*ever he -said'in trying `to 'evaluate the true - he project out o the several sites that*were by the City merit of t Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, August 24, 1977 staff, the developer -and the.HUD staff, this particular site was selected as one that had the optimum characteristics for this type of development..,- . There are many favorable aspects of this project, the price of the pxo;perty, the level 'topography the proximity of city facilities and services to major ar- terial stre'ets,.shoppin s g.center, the City transportation, :churches,, the. = future hospital and Lucchesi Park. These are •many of the aspects that would make this type of a project advantageous - to thee -older citizens and young couples.. Un- fortunately due to the'unbelievable.increase of housing and rent, .these two particular groups have been hit the hardest, and it is very difficult for -many older citizens to maintain their own homes,, or purchase new onese. Also, for. the young people - trying to purchase a home,,�it -is increasingly a very difficult thing and subsequently many of them'haye to live.in substandard; housing. All this is as a result of the sharp increases in housing g'cost,. the increase in taxes., commuting' cost and' the price ' of food' which has rea °ched -a - point where many of,,,the• disadvantaged people' -do not have the ability .to cope with it. Everyone, is. in favor of doing something about ity, when the '•time comes, the prod ec;t_�, s sho'.t . down. It is good City planning to provide a ggo,d cross sect on of housing-, only..of housing types, but also. of density 'for the most - benefit to the entire community.. Mr. Horciza, was hopeful that this project, would be<a high, qual ty project - and not, have an unfavorable impact on the neighborho As a'Planning „Commissioner, he felt this would be a :good project for .City and would be''Beneficial to the oad and young couples with children.. Comm. :Lavin',.stated there. were two conflicting issues. The first had to do with the right of, the elderly to have and expect housing within their means. He felt there - was.a real obligation to provide this, and it is to6'bad that the' City was cni €ized.for trying to meet, the needs of these people,. as'this is their.,,obligation. and we should not sit back and let those needs' be 'hy- passed It is,, also, right. for you to have your property the way you want it. Comm.. Shearer,, explained. there was 960 elderly households -and: 788 small ' fam flies living in. Petaluma qualified for'low- ineome.housing' but unable'to `get it.. She objected to segregating, *the elderly from the community'. in this 'type of complex. She felt it is was more healthy for children to 'live iii .neighborhoods where young and old live next door, opposed to grouping the elderly away from the young. She found in comparing other locations in the City, this was the most suitabl& . site for';a young and elderly low- income project. Comm : Waite. .noted, .that 'people rely on. the „ zooning process to provide ,stability.. He,,,saw no_ pattern of change in,the neighborhood, it is single family tial, , except, as brought about by , this . par-ticular zoning ; action. He stated it is improper to, go into a neighborhood:and,,create a zoning -,.. Such .a,change•wo.uld , be too much, too' soon and destroy” the stability' residents have come to accept, Comm. Wright explained,that a Unit Development Plan may be °approved by the City Council upon 'recommend'ation.of the Planning Commis ion. In recommending - the, approval of -said Plan, the Commission must find that said Plan clearly results in a more desirable use of land and .a better physical environmefit than would be possible under any 'single zoning d'is or combination of `zoning districts.. In addition to such general findings:; the Planning'Commission and City Council must . make following findings specific under Section 19- 901,..4 of the. Zoning Ordinance. Comm., Wright stated he truthfully felt that this particular project did -not meet. the findings of the ;Zoning Ordinance He. was co ncerned about the channel ,and the creeks. ih area and the. Sonoma County Water Agency's plan -2- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes.,` August '24, 1977 1 - for the -bulldozing o.f'trees.. He did noC cons der the architecture compatible with the adjacent property, the parking iaas,.inadequate,,'and the entrance to the II project was not acceptable'.. Comm: Head moved to recommend approval of the requested rezoning to the City Council with the specific findings as stayed_. The motion was seconded by Comm: Hor'ciza. AYES - 3 NOES 4 - AB,SEN.T 0 The motion was defeated. Comm'�Waite moved to'deny the application of -the Roman Catholic Bishop of Santa � p p y , - ( Rosa fo rezone prop er.t . known as A.-P. ��7- 510 -21 to P,UD lanned Unit District) P in that all of the required findings, cannot be made in order to approve the application; in that the- .Planning Commission cannot find,. based 'upon the evidence presented that the development of the property, in the `manner proposed by the applicant will not be detrimental to the public welfare,. will be in keeping with the best interests of' the City, and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the Zoning Ordinance., with the Petaluma General -Plan and with any applicable Environmental Design, Plans adopted by the. City,, which, finding is required by Se'ction,.19.901_.4 of the.Zon ng Ordinance. The motion was,,. seconded by' Comm. Balshaw. AYES 4 NOES 3• ABSENT. 0 Comm: Wright was excused at 8:.30 p_m. CONVENIENCE MARKETS & Wayne Rasmussen explained that public discus - FAST-FOOD RESTAURANTS- sons have taken place concerning,the problems created E.I.Q. EVALUATION/ by convenience markets and,fast -food restaurants,in the ZONING. ORDINANCE Petaluma Area, and particularly on East Washington AMENDMENT: Street. The recently constructed Wendy's Restaurant I ' and ro osals for three 7 ElevenFoodstores have in't�en- (Continued' P ' - ,. . . { sified this disucssiod. A Planning Department study was then presented.to describe..the, status of convenience markets and fast -food restaurants in an attempt`'to better understand the effects - they are having on the City.• A review of the report'and a discussion of, the mitigating measures were then held:, The principle, items of concern were: 1`), The repeti:tion.by franch se.business, establishments of the same architec- C tural.design.s. For example„ McDonalds looks the same in Petaluma'as it .does n. most other cities. 2) The degree to which fa's't -.foot restaurants can be , deemed to serve'the , traveling public,. 3) A separation of two, blocks or 700 -feet between. fast -food restaurants and 2,500 feet between convenience markets was questioned; because in some �cases.an applicant might have to locate at an inferior location due to the ,distance restrictions. l -3- . Petaluma City Planning Commi'ssion Minutes, August 24, 1977. 4) It was the general consensus that convenience markets and ferst-f' oot testa - tiedn - ts'. sh�ould, b6'r.eITIoved'ftom• the permitted use category and, . placed under the ' cond'itional,:use -- list. In so doing, the he C6mmissio p would have amore workable tool for dealing with .future devel 6pments. The Public Hearing, to, consider the Environmental a Im p ct Questionnaire-was , - operied. Al Sams.0n,, •owner of the,'Opik Stop Market on East Washington Stteet east Of North McDowell Blvd. , asked why the situated area a r 1 tuated east of the freeway was, not,.included in 'the proposal-? Mr. Rasmussen - stated t-hdt.dt was, but that, the 2,,500 feet separdtion does not pertain 'to Central . Commercial zones. The distance, represents the minimum required to serve an existing . amily, residential.neighborhood. The separation is considered necessary to.prevent ,the proliferation of the use in neighborhoods which are al-ready adequately served. Joe!.. Millner,, 813 Gi1ardI, questioned why 'convenience, market and "were not iiicludea It the - C=H District. Comm. Waite , move 'd to direct the Planning Director to prepare a - pd . pb t a'Nega7- tive Declaration for proj,ect. The motion ,was 'seconded by Comm. Lavin. AYES 6' NOES 0'' ABSENT Comm. gAlshaw stated that Policies should be established f or the staf f relating ng to coAihuity of .'architecture-, f ootage separation of markets - tr'e',es .,, e tc: A developer would have, to f ollow the policy if' he expected f av6kabi , - 0' : 'IE�ftt - e mm from the staff. The,pplicy would be based on considerati6ns"telating to health, .safety and general welfare. The Publie Hearing to consider amendments to the Zoning,Ordinanceiwas opened,. Mr. -Millnet" s.ta.ted, that If fast - -food restaurants and convenience- markets were to'be limited, and not allowed to be located on East Washington,S,tr,eet. where 'b' per - muted to locate? would they 'e e. The Public"Hearing was closed. Comm.'`She'arer moved to recommend approval of , the ordinance amendments to'�the o City Council with the following changes: The following definitions should be added to &ec-tion' 1 Convenience Market: A compact retail grocery store opened to the public for at•least twelve hours a day to, serve primarily snacks and short term grocery And sundry needs. Fast-Food Restaurant: Any retail establishment intended, to provide pri7 ia short orde.r food service for on=site dipin'& and 'food take-out, including:. self -serve ,re'ataurants,, . except cafeterias where foo7d.is con- sumed' on the premises; drive.-'.in -restaurants,; and formula restaurants required by contractual or other agreements to offer standardlizied menues, ingredients and 'fast -food preparation. Neighborhood Commercial Dist -riot Three . changes are recommended for, the C='N District: 11-201 - Any retail business or service' establishment, such,as a grocery (excluding convenience markets), fr or- vegetable :store.., bakery, drug -4- r ct Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, August 24, 1977 store, barber and beauty shop, dry cleaning and laundry pick-u p station business or prof ess.iorial o €`fi:ce: and the like',,';supplying commodities 'or p,erforming services primarily for residents of the neighborhood. , 11 -202 Res'taur'ant, cafe-and soda fountain.; not -including: fast -food restaurants or or dancing or sa`l:e..of alcholic.beverag:es for consumption on the premises. Add the following to the Conditional Use list: 1�1 -407 - Convenience Markets. Central Commercial District - Four changes are recommended for the C -C Dis- tricC:. 2 -202 - Stores (excluding convenience markets), shops, banks and offices erving the.Petaluma market area. 12 -203 - Restaurants (excluding fast -food restaurants) cocktail lounges, n ight clubs wh'er'e liquor, beer, or other alcholic beverages may be sold f`or consumption on the premises. d the following sections to the Conditional Use list: - 407 - Fast -Food Restaurants. -408 - Convenience Markets. Commercial District - Three changes are recommended for the C -H Dis- trict 3 -206-- Restaurants (excluding fast =food restaurants), refreshment tands, and bars',. d the following sections to the Conditional Use list: 411 - Fast Food Restaurants 3- 412 - Convenience.Markets Section 26- 405.,.1(2) to read The architectural style which should be appropriate for the project in question, and the form and roof type of new commercial buildings which shall not without Planning Commission approval reflect a standardized b asic architectural style which is similar to� other: such projects con - structed through related contractual or other agreements in the San Francisco Bay Area, Statewide or Nationally. It is not the intent of this section to establish any particular architectural style. The motion was seconded by Comm. Horciza. AYES 6 NOES .0 ABSENT 1 The Planning Commission recommended. -Ghat the City Council consider as general policies the separation distances between convenience markets and fast -food restaurants outlined in the study. -5- - •.z Petaluma City Planning Commission 'Minutes, August 24., 1977 RESIDENTIAL - DEVELOP- 'The folYowing'Commissioner s volunteered to.serve on the y MENT'CONTROL BOARD Residential Develop 'ment,Control Board:' Mar Shearer and C. G.lehn Head ADJOURNMENT: There being no further: business, the - meeting adjourned at 10`:5.0 p.m.