Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/07/1977MINUTE S PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION • REGULARJ'MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL SEPTEMBER 7, 1977 7:30 P.M. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA Present1: Comm. Head, 'Horciza, Lavin *, Shearer, Waite, Wright ( *Arrived 7:40 Absent;! Comm. Balshaw Staff: i Ronald F. Hall, PlanningDrector APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the meetings of ; August 16, 1977, August 23, 1977, and August 24, 1977, were approved as submitted. i CORRESPONDENCE: Mr..Hall stated he had received a phone call from Del Davis regarding the Drafe E.;I.R. for the planned resi- dential'subdivisions, east of • Ely Blvd. South, requesting that the hearing be postponed until the meetingg.of September 20, 1977, so their traffic engineer would have the completed information and also be able to consult with the City Engineer, It was the consensus that this item be placed on the Planning Com- mission[Agenda for September.20, 1977. CONSENTICALENDAR The motion was made by Comm. Horciza, seconded by Comm. i Head, to.approve Items 1. through 4. Motion was carried unanimously. Agenda Item 1 Duane Kenny, Negative Declaration and Site Design Res. ? 5.484 approving industrial warehouse complex to be lo- cated at 421 Payran Street. Agenda Item 2 C. W. Dawson, Site Design Res,.'5.483 approving addition to•the:Boulevard Bowl located at 1100 Petaluma Blvd. South. Agenda Item 3 Peter Mico, Negative Declaration and Site Design Res. 5.489 approving restaurant located at 330 Western Avenue. Agenda Item 4 Cal Schmidt, Site Design Res. 5.488 approving front ex- terior alteration to the Roger'Wi.lco Store located at 621 East Washington Street.. LARRY ibNAS- E.I.Q. Mr. Hall explained the request Lawrence Jonas for a EVALUATION /USE PERMIT /. reduction parking spaces for a proposed restaurant/ SITE DESIGN REVIEW: office building to be located at 206 Weller Street. The proposed development includes dental offices on the gTound: floor and a restaurant on the top floor. Lot 1, which abuts the Peta- luma River, covers 6,400 square 'feet and contains the proposed building. Lot 2, located -on the opposite side of Weller Street, covers 11,000 square feet and is to be developed with a 23 =space parking lot. Petaluma City Planning Commissi.on:Minutes,, September. 7, 1977 A discussion „was held o_n the rear setback requirements and the-request the applicant for a,25% reduction in the no required number of tparking .spaces. Comm,;.-Lavin commented that normally 25 -foot setbacks are required, but only 14 feet, are proposed -for _ this projrec't. -Mr.:Hall explained that this isl a diffi cult ,site to develop. If a boardwalk - is built along the property waterfront,, the boardwalk could be taken into consideration, with the idea of providing a form.of open space. The Public Hearing to consider the. Environmental Impact Questionnaire was opened. Comm. Horciza stated this project would be an improvement to the• property, the environment and the Petaluma River. Comm. Horciza moved to direct the Planning Director to prepare and post a Negative Declaration for the project. The motion was seconded by Comm. Head., AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 The Public Hearing to consider.the Use -Permit was opened. Larry Jonas.stated the_proper intrigued him because of the view;of the river. He,likedthe proposal for a b.oardwailk. He. realized parking, was a, problem, but - tried'to the.problem.as much as possible: He indicated that Wally Kieckhef'er would' let him have use of the Golden Eagle Shopping Center parking area after 5:;00 p.mi Comm: Wright questioned_ if there would be a written agreement with Mr. Kieckhefer relative to the parking area. Mr. Jonas - stated there would.beo Comm. Head said if 'the lease were cancelled. the have -'any parking;.. Parking. is primarily dependent�on a 3 -year lease; if the. lease is no;t renewed, parking for the project could-then-become a burden on-the City by cars parking -on Weller Street. Mr. Jonas -the City was concerned about- parking but he was-also concerned about the prosper.ty�of_ his business. Mr.. Jonas stated that Mr Kieckhe:fer would give him a 3-year lease from thereon, the lease would be on.a year to year basis,.but no longer period of time would be committed. He explained that Skip Sommer's Farrell House project,-located on-We.11er.Street - at the Petaluma River, had the seating capa- city for the restaurant .increased by the Planning ,Commission at December, 1976' . meeting to reflect not only automobile parking but docking.faci.lities as, well and further that the seating capacity should not-exceed the requirements of the Fire.Marshal.. Mr. Jonas stated the added parking would be the.-river, and the•Kieckh_efer.parking 'lot. Comm. Wright asked what traffic would be expected from the river? Mr. Jonas stated he :antici.pated 80 to 1.00 restaurant patrons. Comm. Shearer stated if the de.velopment.wer.e a success, there would be a number vehicles parking.all.day .long and, suggested the applicant obtain an option to-lease, parking spaces. Comm.-Head did not -feel, that other people's ,property rights should be enf'ringed upon in-order to provide parking. Mr. Jonas asked that. he..be given the benefits as the Farrell House. Comm. Horciza stated it, questionable tospeculate.there will be a large volume of traffic from- ,the river. Mr.. Jonas asked for -°a seating capacity, of 90-for the restaurant and 30 parking spaces,at river docking facilities. The Public Hearing was closed. Comm.'Lavin moved .to,,gr,an.t the Use Permit subject to the conditions as recom- mended :by the staff : The motion died for _Lack of:.a second Comm. Horciza moved-to grant the ,Use. Per-mit . t.he ,.proposed restaurant /office building , subject to the following conditions: 2- I Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes; September. 7, 1977 • 1. The seating capacity -of the restaurant.shall not exceed thirty -five (35) unless.additional off - street parking, approved by the-Planning Director, is obtained within 300 feet of the building 2. At fhe end of three years, equivalent parking shall be secured for the development. The motion was seconded by Comm. Shearer. AYES 5 NOES 1 ABSENT 1 Comm. Head moved to approve the site design for the proposed restuarant /office building with conditions of approval as recommended:by the,staff and concurred with bylthe Architectural & Site Design Review Co e mmitte with the following changes; The motion was seconded by Comm. Shearer. AYES 5 NOES 1 ABSENT 1 • Comm. Head moved to approve the site design for the proposed restaurant /office building with conditions of approval as recommended by the staff and concurred with by'the Architectural & Site Design Review Committee with the following changes; :; Condition 1 - Delete the following from Condition 1 - An automatic irrigation system for both lots. Condition 3 - Reworded to read: All electrical and mechanical equipment and the trash enclosure shall.'be adequately screened in.a manner deemed appropriate by the Manning Director. The proposed trash container shall be relocated at least ten (10) feet away from the front property line. itign 10— Delete Last sentence,. The motion was seconded by Comm. Horciza: AYES 6 .NOES 0 ABSENT 1 PETALUMA;PLAZA- E.I.Q. Mr. Hall explained the request.of Mark Barber to allow EVALUATION /VARIANCE, for a uniform s gn.identi- fication program along the - REQ.UEST: south wall of the Petaluma Plaza.Shopping,Center for the ,purpose of providing specific rear wall advertising exposure to the commercial users of East Washington Street. The signs would measure ;2 feet by 8 to.12 feet in size depending the required lettering per sign.. Each sign would be interior -illuminated by high output tubes.,,within individual 24_gage-gaint -lock galvanizedi box housings:.. Comm..Horciza.moved.. NegativelDeclaration I AYES 6 to direct the.,Plarining Director to prepare and post a for -the project. The motion was seconded by Comm. Waite. NOES 0 ABSENT. 1 -3- Petaluma City Planning Commission.Minutes, September 7, 1977 Comm. Horciza stated that the'basis for the. variance .'request. could. be found in the four findings of Section 26-303 of the Zoning Ordinance.: If the signs were familiar and the passing motorists dd have to study them, they could not, be considered a hazard. It•would take motorists more time to study signs stacked on one building than signs mounted on indivi.dual`build•ings. The public hearing to consider a variance for the project was opened. Mark Barber, of Barber Sign Co.., stated the sign identification program is needed to properly-identify-the site aa'a shopping center and not a warehouse. The sign illumination as far as cars are concerned can•be toned down. The 2- foot sign would have-12" lettering and this would not jump out,''parti:cularly if the illumination is-cut down., --Also, all the •signs would not be• visible at one time. Comm.. Wright asked if the signs were at the option of­t.he tenant.. Mr— Barber they were,, and once-the-sign was mounted it was up to stay. The sign box would be permanent, but the,plastic name plate is 'removed and replaced for a new tenant. Chuck Lewis, manager of the.J. C. Penney store, stated.the.signing of.their store was very poor. The first impression from the highway of the shopping center is that -.it is a warehouse. The appearance of the shopping center from Washington Street is bad. He would like to make the J. -C. :Penney building more pleasing to The public hearing was closed. Comm. ' Head moved to grant a variance for the Petaluma Plaza Shopping Center to- allow for a uniform sign•identifcation program based on the following con- ditions.: 1. The entire rear walls of the subject. Petaluma Plaza buildings;, which are to display the.app : roved signs, are to.be painted and all 16 signs shall be shown to be illuminated.to the satisfact;ion.of..the Planning Director prior to the issuance. of a sign. permit 2. A11proposed revisions indicating the conditioned—variance changes includ- ing the proposed paint .color of the rear wall, sign - illumination, and specific sign design and placement shall be submitted 'to the Planning Department on revised plans for review and approval prior to the issuance of :a sign permit. 3. The - applicants, sign.designer., and.consitruction contractor shall comply_ with all.other applicable.City ordinances, performance standards., and other regulations. The motion was seconded by Comm: Horciza. AYES 4 . NOES 2 ABSENT 1 WESTERN AVENUE Mr -.. Hall explained that the City Council was- :concerned. HILZSIDE.AREA over- piecemeal annexation and development of the' SPECIFIC PLAN;: Western Avenue Hillside area and directed the Planning Department. -to: undertake a specific area plan the area. 'Th& Western .Avenue Hillside area s approximately -133-acres and is a sub- drainage basin located south of Western Avenue and west of the LaCresta Drive area. Mr. Hall asked for input from the Western Avenue property owners on what they considered the future use of the area should be,.and that the Commission make a -4- Petaluma City Planning dommission.Minutes September 7, 1977 determination on whether a study should be made of the entire basin or if the study area should be narrowed down. Comm. Wright explained this is public input on what public feels should be done with the area. It is a process of getting id'eas this time. Comm. Waite questioned if the entire area could be sewered by gravity? Mr. Hall stated that sewer connections are possible for.the entire,area. Jim Ceresa, a resident, questioned the time factor involved in the study. Mr. Hall explained it would be a time consuming project, possibly taking about 3 months. If this area should become apart of the City within the next 10 years, .a should-be made on it. Mr. Wians stated he was in no hurry to have this property developed. D. Jose ,'ph, 1801 Western Avenue, ,owner of 1/3 acre, needed more information on lot sizes, 'how fast annexation would take.place,.and the number of acres the park would consume. Ken Rhode, representing California Water Service Co. owners of 13.6 acres, expressed interest in seeing English Street extended into their p:,r.operty. This would benefit the land- locked owner of 5 acres near. Chileno] Valley Road. .Concern was expressed by others about taxes if the property is made into smaller lots.., Comm. Wright explained that if development takes place near their property, assessments could change. Mr. Hall stated that if study is made, it might determine that 5 acres would be the average size of the lots. Mr. Cer,'sa asked if it would be mandatory to have sewerage if the property were annexed to the City. Mr. Hall 'explained there would be no immediate effort to annex to: the City. Mr. Ceresa stated these properties cannot have City ser- vices unless the property owner pays for the services. Comm. Wright explained that in annexations the property does not.have to have sidewalks and sewerage. Mr. Ceresa stated the City would not skip property to annex, but would take in an entire block, and the property owner would have to pay City taxes along with County ,taxes. Mr. :Hall explained that better services would be made available through�lannexation, namely fire and police protection. I. Mr. Burmeister, 1423 Western Avenue, owner of 12 ; acres, like the status quo. A resident stated he liked the -rural area and would like it left the way it is. A. resident of 1591 Western Avenue, owner of 16.acres, expressed concern,on how_ the change would affect her chicken ranch. Mr. Hall stated a determination would have to be made on whether people wanted smaller lot sizes or a more rural area. Mrs. Roy K,imba,lL, 1845 Western Avenue, owner of 1/2 acre, stated deer now come on their property and they want it to remain im its present state. Mr. Hal -1 asked if the property, owners wanted the staff to prepare a study. One resident stated there is no need as the study is too costly and time consuming, esp,ec ally ti?h;en ,they did not, , want . the area changed. Mark Ammons, stated most of the people have lived in the area-for a number of years and tley like it the way it is. Mr. Hall explained' that the`County is in the process of adopting a General Plan and the residents of the Western hillside area should keep in- formed of the County pr °bp — 1 : . Mr. Ammons stated he -was satisfied with the way the'County "was handling the area now.' If the City goes ahead with the plan, th'e property owners will all have to have City sewerage. -5- Petaluma City Planning.Commission Minutes, September'7; 1977 Comm: Wright 'stated the City Council 'was concerned` about piecemeal development and a. study should be undertaken to determine the desires of the 'people. The public" hearing wa's closed: Comm. Head stated there should be a circulation plan to determine.where'roads would -be located so that problems'would 'not arise such as the Bodega,Avenue area. Mr.. Hall stated this would be necessary if there is an increase in the number.of lot splits° Comm. Head stated we- should think'15 t6`2& years ahead As far as road's: and boundaries `are Concerned so - that property owners will - know the roads° and, circulation patterns for the area: Mr. Ammons demands rights. of -way, if the land is to be.sold it has to :have a right -of' -way. Comm Head s;tated.a study Would determine the right width's for streets according to City standards. Comm, Horeiz'a stated the study should be an.overall plan'to - include lot sizes and street patterns. Comm. Head moved that a.circulation study be made of the area. The'mot'ion died for lack "of a second. Comm. 'Waite moved that a general study be made,.but limited 'to the areas most,' adla the Citv. The motion was seconded by Comm. Horciz'a. AYES: 5 NOES 1 ABSENT. 1 If was the general consensus that the, meeting be continued- pas'tthe hour of 10:30 p:m. ZONING ORDINANCE. Mr. Hall explained :the -request was to- revise -the Zoning AMENDMENT TO,ADD Ordinance.to 'allow for' increased._d'ecking coverage'in SECTION 22:40.1.6- -front and rear yard areas. This would allow an extra E.T..Q.. EVALUATION/ 5% coverage of the yard'and 40% coverage of the ZONING ORDINANCE rear yard. AMENDMENT The Public.Hearing to consider the Environmental .Impact Questionnaire was - opened. N&-commiants were offered from the audience and the Public Hearing was closed. Comm. La-vin.moved.to . direct the: Planning* Director to prepare and post a Negative Declaration for the project The motion was seconded by Comm. -Head. AXES 6' NOES 0 ABSENT• 1 It was the general . consensus -that the proposal was restricted to-decks and not to structures. The Public Hear ng opened - , to consider 'the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amend- ment-to allow for increased decking in front and rear yards..... No comments were offered from.the audience and the.Piiblic Hearing was closed. Comm. Lavin. moved to recommend approval of the requested Zoning Ordinance. Amendment by adding Section 22.401.6 to the -City Council with the.f'ollowing finding" �Z Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, September 7, 1977 The amendment.is in conformance :with the General and Environmental Design Plans and is ' with the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare. i The motion was seconded by Comm. Head.. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 WALT WILLIAMS AND RAY Mr Hall explained the developers of the Miwok Manor V. AGUIRRE /DISCUSSION Subdivision requested a reduction in the requirements ITEM: of low cost housing. Walt Williams, developer stated they were having problems selling their 2- bedroomllow- income houses. The price of the 2- bedroom home is now $47;750 and the 3- bedroom was $59,75:0. They are building two and three bedroom homes, but out of:the first 50 homes, the four bedroom homes -sold first and only five (5') 2- bedroom homes -sold. They do not want to delete the -2- bedroom, but want the public to have something they like. Comm. Head questioned why people in this area had to-pay more for their houses than-in iother areas? Mr. Williams explained there is no competition here. Whenever there is a control on -a commodity, the prices go up. Mr. Ernest Vivas, a neighbor of the subdivision, stated that low- income people would like a 3 bedroom house with a fireplace and a double oven and be able to live like the rest of the people. I Comm. Hgrciza stated that under the allotment system -each developer received points for providing low cost here we are - considering scratching this item on low- income housing.. Mr. Williams"stated it appeared to him that Petaluma is in a unique situation as we do not -have these low- income, $800.00 to $1,200.00 people in this area. There is no.market f.or this house -even if we build it. Comm. Wright stated a man. cannot be forced to build something that he c'annot..sell. Comm. Waite.commented. that $47,750 could not be considered low - income housing. Mr. Williams indicated that he has built 5 of the 2- bedroom homes of the the required 20. He asked if he could build the 2- bedroom as requested by a buyer,. Comm. Shearer moved to reduce-the requirement for the low cost housing, but the 2- bedroom home be retained and that it be available.and built for people as requested. The motion was seconded by Comm. Lavin. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT. l t ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Chairman Attest: " -7-