HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/15/1977°y V
Ism
an a, n
n
0
NOVEMBER '1 1 -977
REGULA - MEETING 7.30.
CITY CQUNCIL ::CHAMB ".CITY {HALL,;. t PETALUMA, 'CALIFORNIA
The Planning Commission, encourages apply cants •or - their`: representatives to be
available at _ the`i M&t-' gs °ta- _answer•• questions, -, . - so - : no - agenda -items need
7 be' dePar'redr to `a ' later` °dat'e' 'due to °'.'a'° lack of gerainent 1n `o- mat on`.
PLEDGE'`AL TO_ THE' ''PLAG
• ° ROLL .CALL Comm: ,$alshaw; Hea Horciza�Lavn' . -
Sheater: Waite." Wright "
STAPF:' Donald ' Hall, Planning - .Director'
MINUTES APPROVAL OF F'IINUT -
CORRESPONDENCE
CONSENT. CALENDAR:
Items appearing on the Consent Calendar will be considered to be routine by the
Planning Commission and' wi11- be enacted by'one-'motion. There will. be no separate
discussion of these items., If; discussion is - desired, that °item (or items) will
be removed from the Consent,. ,
Northwestern Title Co 1.` K.I Q; Evaluation and Site Design Review of.
a..proposed office building to be located at
515 East Washington Street.
Richard Pieraccini 2. E.I.Q. Evaluation and Site Design Review of
a proposed duplex to--be located at. 529 =7th St.
the Environmental;
DOUGLAS.MC CABE- E.;I.Q.
1.
Public. A&at rig to; evaluate
EVALUATION, /REZ`ONING
Impact Questionnaire for a
prbp,osed rezoning
FROM `R -1 - , 500 TO - R -C
'of the ,pro,pert - located at
148 Arlington
(COMP RESIDENT -IAL)
Drive f rom: :R -1 -6,500 to Compact Residential.
2,.
P.ublic:Hearing to consider'ah
application to_:
rezone the above property..
:.
JIM,QBERG E.,I_Q:
1.
Public Hearing to evaluate
the Environmental
EVALUATION, VARIANCE.,
'•Impact Questionnaire for a
proposed Lumber
SITE;pESIGN REVIEW:
Yard Expansion•.located at
5000 Petaluma Blvd N.
2.
Public - Hearing to consider
a variance request
-
;for in,,eight, foot sdeyard
setback'.
3.
- Site ,Design Review of - the
proposed project.
•
' 4
t +
�yPETAlUMA `PL ANNINGII;tCOMMISSION'
4� s � tj"k"� ,g '
=:AGENDA i
=E ,. 150-,
,< 1
PACHECQ SUBDIU1IShON'/ r
:' " _ l
:.,MANUEL' PACHEGO i �
'4Request tfor;= antwo year) .extension�of, dime to
k'
t
e the tSubdivisiori ^Map:``forttietPacheco
Subdiv�sioi 3locat `ed`a't..3.03 "';Gran'tAenue, r,a!�.
_
�rw
4!
CITY "CO.UNCIL1,REFERRAL '.,
u ' � '` ',°^
TQ AMEND THEzCIRCULATION
�: t Council referral df at ro osed amendment
Ci y P F. �J
ELEMENTa OF.THE...,CITY
the CirculatonzE�lementrto the �Ci'ty General
. -.
GENERAL' PLAN;;
.'P,lan.a'ot wHighwaylr101,.,Iriter "change '
_
Nand connectng�lnle ^to�Ranier��Aveniie_ " - "
.: ADJOURNMENT
•
f t
•
.M I N U T E S
PE.TALUMA CITY PLANNING ,COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
.. 7 P M
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS', CITY HALL " PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
PRESENT: Comm. Balshaw, Horciza, Shearer, Waite, Wright
ABSENTil = Comm. Head, Lavin
STAFF: Ronald F. Hall, Planning Director
APPROVAL OF The minutes of tfie meeting of November 1, 1977, were
approved with the following corrections: Douglas
McCabe!Site Design Rev ew_, - Page. 5 - add - The motion was seconded by Gomm...
Shearer:' Amendment to Circulation Element of. -the Cit"y'General Plan,and EIR as
. part ';6f the Amendment - add - Public Hearing was closed.
RICHARD Mr. Hall explained'the request by Richard Pieraccini
E.I.Q. EVALUAT -101Q' - for a proposed single -stony duplex- to be located at 529
SITE DESIGN REVIEW: Seventh Street. Th'e proposed duplex unit is rectangu-
lar in shape with 790 square feet per unit of living
space; and a, garage will divide each unit. The Zoning designation is R -C
zoning, Compact Residential. A`letter from Joyce. and. Nick Shmatovch, dated
November 15, 1977, protesting any new construction.on the property, was read.
'Comm. Wright explained that fencing is not a requirement for the site, but.if
installed would be.with the concurrence of the. Planning staff.
The, Public Hearin to consider the Environmental Impact Questionnaire was
opened.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Memorandum from the City Attorney regarding.require-
,; .
ments for dedication where subdivisions or parcel maps
are not involved. ..The
item to be.placed on a future'agenda,for discussion.
I .
Letter from Richard
Lieb regarding parking requirements for duplex units. This
item .to'ibe placed on
a future agenda for discussion.
{
Letter !from Joyce „ &
Nick Shmatovich regarding the Pieraccini application.
CONSENT�!CALENDAR
The motion, was made by Comm. Horciza, seconded by Comm.
Wright to remove the•Richard Pieraccini application
from the Consent Calendar. Motion was carried unani-
j
.mously.
Agenda Item #1
Northwestern Title. --Co., Negative Declaration and Site
!�
Design Res.. 5.504,, approving of., fice building to be
located at 5.15 East - Washington treet.
The motion was made by Comm.. Wright, seconded by Comm.
Shearer to approve Item l. Motion was carried unani-
mously.
RICHARD Mr. Hall explained'the request by Richard Pieraccini
E.I.Q. EVALUAT -101Q' - for a proposed single -stony duplex- to be located at 529
SITE DESIGN REVIEW: Seventh Street. Th'e proposed duplex unit is rectangu-
lar in shape with 790 square feet per unit of living
space; and a, garage will divide each unit. The Zoning designation is R -C
zoning, Compact Residential. A`letter from Joyce. and. Nick Shmatovch, dated
November 15, 1977, protesting any new construction.on the property, was read.
'Comm. Wright explained that fencing is not a requirement for the site, but.if
installed would be.with the concurrence of the. Planning staff.
The, Public Hearin to consider the Environmental Impact Questionnaire was
opened.
Petaluma City Planning..Commissibn Minutes, November 15, 1977
Nick Shmatovich, 525 Seventh - stated he `had not been notified by the
City that .1 duplex was to be.buill;, and, people in the-neighborhood should'know
what developmen.t is proposed for an -area. He, requested ex-
that the project' be
`1 further 'input could-be ma de on the proj ect. - C - onn., WalWaite postponed, urift ma
plained that this was,not conditional, use nor a rezoning.so a.-public hearing
process was, not required. Mr. Shmatovich did not believe- the Planning Com�7
mission could take actiori until more input. was made on "the project .1 . Mrs
- Shmatovich opposed , the project, stating; V_
ing� they would not ha sold the.pToperty
to Mr. Pleraccini if they"had known he planned to build a dupl She asked.
that the neighborhood be given an opportunity -fbr further input. Mrs. Shmatovich
explained the lot is-190 feet deep,, a,s I ubstantial size.lot, and between their
backyard and the proposed Property's backyard, there is an open space area where*
..children_Lplay. Mr.- Pieradcini stated.. he. did ,.not discuss with the ,pxevious
property owner& Any limitations ;on the property.; He intends 'tearing down the
rickety 'gatacge and 'the building to rear of the property a's he co nsiders
both buildings hazards. Mr. Pieraccini explained that 'the adjacent pro- I
perty and the property to the rear is comprised.,'of duplexes, and.ttiplexes. The
proposed duplex would fit well with thefront house and surrounding houses. He
stated that building plans had not . been- to the Building Department as
impled by the Shma.tovich'SL. He indicated he. would put in a nice redwood fence
between the two prbpertles.,'and act. no time d=id he say he would n6t build some-
.thing on this ;property. There were no.limitatidiis. or restrictions on the sale
of the property. The Public Hearing..was.closed.
Comm. Shearer. stated'the property is�already zoned compact residential and
therefore notices are not sent to neighbors within 300 feet of the site. Comm.
Wright, could •.see why the Shmatovithes; opposed'the project. 'He requested
that Condition 6:be changed to read' that decorative redwood fencing -if provided
around the pprim ter of'the site shall.be as.specified by the Planning Direc-
tor. Comm. Balshaw stated. that Mr.. and 'Mrs. Shmatovich had the right to appeal
to. City Council. Mr. explained the appeal had: to be filed within, 15
days., and the appeal must address the environmental impact.of the site design
and not the project use.
Comm. Wright moved to direct the Planning Director to prepare and post a Nega-
tive Declaration for the proJect. The motion was seconded by Gomm.,Shearer.
AYES 5 NOES '0 ABSENT 2-
'Comm. Horciza moved to approve the ;site design for the proposed project with
the conditions of approval as b y the staff and modified by the
Architectural & 'Site Design Review Committee with the following changes:
Condition 6.- added Decorative redw6od.fencing If - provided ground the peri-
meter of the site Shall be as speci"f ied by the:.'Planning Director-
Condition 7 added - The-design of. the-carport 'shall' be_ cpnsistett'with that
of the duplex in terms: of form and building materials.... Motion seconded by
Comm.'Balshaw. AYF q` 5 N@Fs: - 0 AMENT 9
DOUGLAS. MC CABE-E-I.-Q,.
EVALUAT /REZONING' '
FROM R-1-6,500 TO R-C'
(COMPACT:RES-IDENTIAL):
.Mr Hall explained the -request. by Douglas.; 'McCabe to
rezone, 'a proxim
ately' 1.5 acres: from R-1-6,,500 to Com-
pact Residential_ located at 148'Arl -Drive.
ti
Pe a'luma. City Planning Commission ,Minutes, - November' :15, 1977
The y -g y g , east. and
- is surrounded b sin le :famil dwelli:n s to the north `and
vacant t e ;land' to the west,. Future development is ;proposed to consist of a maxi -
mum of dwell units
g including, one duplex on each- ,of. loos:, and one
duplex #`and ;a single- le dwelling on each; of two lots.
Mr.. McCabe explained that the Sonoma,County Water Agency",owns a portion of
Arl- ingt for . right of -wa,y access t`o 'the Washington Creek channel. The'
Sonoma I County Water .Agency' is installing a cyclone fence around the creek. Mr.
.Rober City Manager, asked'if.the staff: had contacted the state regarding
the interchange loops`? - Mr: Hall, answered that the �S,tate was not contacted '
regarding the rezoning,, ;but would be ,contacted ,at, the tentative map stage.
Comm. Wright ' explained that,.the dotted line on. the plot. map shows the property 1 1. the state would take for a interchange loop,.
The Puftic Hearing .was opened to consider the. Envir Impact Questionnaire.
- Greg Vincent, 128 Arli•ng-toh Drive.. stated that most of. the -homes on Arlington
and Burlington are privately owned and the - proposed units would be rentals..
This area has had very little traffi,c:: Children have :played on these--streets:_,
-He did Inot want Arii,n,gton and .Burlington connected- fo:r the safety of:: the
_,.
children. - Mr. Vincent explained !tlYa -t two families would. occupy_ the s.ame•.space ,
°as oned' Most families, have•two cars and therefore there would be an increase
in traffic in an : area. ;that has 'no cars. ' Petaluma. School. District currently has
no 'schools on 1/2 day sessions. T_l ere would.-be a vast, impact on the children
growingfup_on Arlington Drive. Jim Piper, 124 Arlington Drive, asked•.that,the
dwellings be built on one level to allow .for the '
privacy' that- at residential.
neighborhood.appreciates The increased vol=ume o;f - f- a=ffic overall would - be
significant. Don Kes's er stated he was in- the process; of buying property
located, .at 157 Arlington Drive., I'f.the mul -tiple dwell- ings permitted, more..
children would -be : in. ,jeopardy f -rom the creek a'n.d traf =fic,, and` ,the area..
would over populated: Hancock,, .153 Arlington'Drive,, stated the p.ro.posal
would enhance the area. and increase the value of... the
_ present proper�t.y.- . , -.He �.
asked that there be a c`ul -de -sac and Arlington Drive not Ve extended. -A.resi
dent of ; 140 Arlington Drive' ,asked that single story duplexes and not two story
units be built behind her property to allow for privae;y. ;She did not want
Arlington Drive connected to Burlington Drive Chris. H nman,' Arlington.,
explained that the garage • and concrete ;would go -right `up to his ,property and he
could not handle this type of situation.. The Public Hearing, was closed.
Mr'. Hal]_ stated there 'is a dscrepancg on the location of :the Sonoma County
Water. -A€ env , z fence line and the 'location indicated, by.'Mr. McCabe.. This is a
rezoning and not ,a project but there would be an,.mpact of :approximately 14
units, on the neighborhood. Comm, Shea -fer as be an impact if
' a there, could '
the roads went thrdtigh_,.'j She was suprised. that p'eopl'e were opposso& to. ,connec =.
Ming the 'streets. She did not feel that the impact, oaf, deh ;61es, would be that
gxeat'.. , Comm, Balshaw stated 'that a cul- de -sa,c is a very. safe environment' for'„ ,:
< chldrer and if a; through street °is proposed; an Environmental Impa¢f Report
_:,should be.:req'uir.ed:. Gomm. Horciza stated' that traffic should .not' be increased
greatly from the•project.. He was concerned 'about the length of: the 650 -foot
cul -de -sac., Mt., 'Hall explained that the Commission should' address, the impact
' of traffic from, 14 unit's and 'the density effect on the single-family' res -ideas
ces. Cbmm- Wright s.t:ated he wa's not satisfied' that there, would.not,be any
f this andnhelu�as. that multlri ' zoningi. : . There would' be 140` tri -p ends per day
�a � p ehomes should b'e located in asngle- family w,
res,ide,naiA d"istt ct.
,., -
-3-
Petaluma Planning ri
Commission.nutes, November l5, 1977
' ,Comm . . Hor <icza ..moved °. that. a limited E. 1. R.. be prepared,, to 'address a limited .
traffic study an& the effect o•f^ increased density for' duplex zoh 'n The
motion, was seconded by 'Comm. Wright.
AYES 3 .' `NOES 2' ABSENT 2
The proposed rezoning- from R- 1 - to .Compac,t Residential` was; ; def_eried until
a limited 2E. L.R.,'is submitted. Mr. Hall 'stated that - people within 300 feet, of
' they project :would '.be not Lfied when the, rezoning request`. will be. ;reconsidered.,
JIM' OBERG- E.I.Q. - ;.. Hall ,expla=ined the request by Jim Oberg _for an 8=
EVALUATION, 'VARIANCE,. foo =t sideyard setback. for a` pro.po.s.ed, lumberyard ex-
SITE DESIGN, -R,_EVIEW: pans on to be: locat`e'd at 5000'; .Peta-luma .Blvd'. North.
- The. site covers 12.3 acres and ,tfie�proposed. development.
includes a lumber s=torage b'uild'ing, rand uncovered' storage piles.- The storage
building is 14 feet in. height and' cover's '2, 91'2 - square feet of area.
The Public Hearing was opened to the'Environmental Impact Question -
naive.. - No comments 'wer'e offered' :from the audience and the T Publ_c Hearing was
clo.se(f.
Comm Wright moved 'to dir=ect. th °e Planning ',Direc = tor t`o prepare and post a ,Ne ;ga-
tive Declaration fo,r the 'project. the• motion was seconded by. Comm. Horci,za.:
AYES` 15 NOES. 0 ABSENT. 2.
..
Cha "'rtes Phillips,` 3 n
4 ,Braching Way, r:epres'enting Jim Oberg,, ,stated. there are
several things that enter into the proposal., Mr„ Ob'etg plans for a motel`
on the property and 'a 50 =f6ot right-of-way street to serve as. A. driveway fo=r
tf e, .motel. It wou a. ld cause , real. hardship ;if the proposed building ,could not
be built. in the same line with the present structure The dumber yar Yids a _
conveyor belt system `wh =ich has to`be run In a straight line with the existing
system. Comm. Shearer asked what access is aava• fable for the proposed bui=ld'"
ing. Mr. Ph ll'ip:s explaffte& there would be: ,a 50 = foot :rightt -of- way - and other.
access points are between,'the. motel 'and by the Cattlemen's._Res ;taurant. If the
building= has to be moved. back 20 feet:; it would be moved 2 f=eet into the ' '`•
right -of: -way., Comm. Horciza commented that: if the motel is built' the lumber
operation would have, to be modified and at which: time: the conveyor, belt ;system
would have 'to be '•rebuil't. and everythi'n'g set back. Mr. Robert Meyer stated ifi&
applicant should aubmit A master plan• showing tYie 'motel. , :Comm: Waite exp=lained
'that the 50' feet would be considered an improved private sareet `and, not ,a
right-- of_- way:.,' The, Public Hearing to consid=er the Variance was' closed. Comm..
Wright stated `there is no legal. grounds ,for a Variance but is' :d gat:ter, of,
convenience fo=r the applicant..
Coup. Wr ght'moved. to : the "V°ariance. - to allow for an eight foot sideyard:._
setback The motion was seconded, b.y Conn.' 5hea'rer.
;AYES" - 5 NOES' 0 ABSENT 2'
Gorun Wright _moved to approve the site design for the.,proposed pro�e,ct ,with
conditions o approval. as "recommended, by the staff and concurred,wi.th by the
A "rchitec ;aural. & Site - D'e_sign Review Committee, wi h: the ^follown addit.
g iont
-4-
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, November 15,,197.7
Condition 10 - added _ Six (Q foot ,high chain link fencing ,s.hall be installed
1
along the west side 'pripperty line abuttin`
•' g the railroad property in a .location.
specified, by the Planning Directo:r,.
The motio y n was seconded' b.
C om m Shearer:
AYE'S .5 NOES 0 . AB'SENT" .2
•
Comm. Waite : explaiined , to Mr: Oberg. that everything• wa approved and the 20 -foot
se "tback was 'provid'ed for .
PACHECO' SUBDIVISION `Comm. 'Waite, imp-lied he had a conflict of interest -re-
rANUEL PACHECO': _ garding the Pacheco; Subd_ivision,` and turned the gavel.
,over..to Comm. • Snearer. Mr. Hall- explained a letter- had
been submitted by Manuel Pacheco requ'es tin g that the City a two. -year ex-
tension, for the filing of the final "subdivision .map 'for the Pacheco :Subdivision
to c'a t
ed, at 303 Grant Avenue,.
Comm. Wright asked why 'the.develo,per needed .a two.year extension:•. Mr. Hall
explained this was the.:,ndr'mal .extension time.•
Comm Wright moved to recommend, approval for a one year time extension for the .
" Pachecol Subd.ivisi.on in which to' file the ,final � .,ma
• p. The motion was
seconded by Comm. Hor.ciza..
AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 2;_ ABSTAIN 1
CITY COUNCIL •REFERRAL Mr. Hall explained - that the Commission, at their
TO AMEND. THE November I beeting,, had tabled the proposed amendment
"• CIRCULATION 'ELEMENT to the Circulation Element of the General Plan which,
OF'THE;CITY •wo'uld pro:vi for a Highway 101 interc'h'ange and connec-
GENERAL for to Rainier avenue a''d a motion is necessary to
t unt:able the item. .
Comm. Shearer moved to :urtable the amendment to 'tha'Circulation Element of the
General Plan and - Amendment to the Environmenta-T.-Dest,2n Plan. The motion was'
secoade;d by Comm Horciza:.
AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT ' 2
- Comm. Wright' asked if the. discuss -ion, was to be `limited to the project location
g .
.ox would it include entrances .anal ;exits. Comm. Horc 'z'a stated, _at -the -. previous
meeting?,' it was the consensus that. it would take.. less ,funding 'to study the
overall, picture „before going ahead with thi proj;ec't.
The City, Manager `;explained that there . was a time frame .involved' I within ” which
the amendment should be" plate,& ron the General Plan. A meeting is scheduled
with federa•1 officials for December to discuss the feasibility of obtaining .
funds for the proj'ec't,., Mr. Meyer stated the,.interchange should have "been
,.
designated in the Environmental Design Plan. The City need's.a tax base :and:
t is a potential area where people may want to go TheState will not _look
at the .p'ro� ect , unl'ess .i irs . :o 'the. General _Plan,. " -
Petaluma_City Planning Commission Minutes :," November. 15, 1977
• . The Public. Hearing was; opened 'to. consider, the Environmental ImI Quest -ion.- `
,
naire. Comm. Horciza, stated we have 'to look for an east /west crossing', up and'
down the valley, `and. we should not let this idea die., A master•. traffic study .
is needed. Overall traffic studies should" be conducted, when poss -ble,, such as
was made for the subdivisions on Ely B'lvd.. S "outhc
Comm. llright moved to direct the ;Planning Director to prepare . and post a .Negative "•
Declaration for the p.'ro:ject. The motion was seconded by Comm. Shearer. _..
AYES 5 NOES 0 y''ABSENT 2
Comm. Balshaw stated an eas.f /.west connection is top ;priority and' the, proposed
interchange is ngt ,an east/west, connection.' I't would provide access to the
freeway but would no,t substantially relieve the 'tra'ffic on 'Washing,ton• ''and
McDowell. He :indicated that 'additional _.connections :to the freeway are the next
.: pr oritq., An i.nterchan a at Corona R`o'ad, connecting: with ;Petal:uma Blvd. could
g _
poss b Prefer' a Caulfield
aovererossi east /we s t H darie�
-'
Lane t �
n a structure without on ram
typ _g, p`to the freeway.`
Comm Horci'za stated an east / westt crossing is needed and both: the _Rainier and
an east/west, interchange should be. shown on the General 'Plan. ,..
`Comm Wright moved to - .recommend approval of a .nevi Highwa - '101 .d'ilr.ect southbound
.
- connector 'to be located a•pproxima_tely :4,400 feet north .of East' Washington
Street, indicated with a connecting link to Rainier Avenue..• The motion_ was
seconded by Comm. Horciza.
•
AYES' 4 NOES, -1. ABSENT 2
" PARCEL OF LAND Comm. Balshaw asked for a status x-- epo,rt on 'the parcel
SOUTHEAST' CORNER - of land; located' on .the' southeast corner• of: Ely and E.
_
ELY & E. WASHINGTON: Washington Street. Comm. Horciz'a e xp`luI ed- that `the
deyelo,per had been given a one -year time.extensfon to
develop, this property. A delay in developing the pro-
peray was so 'the developer would." know' the outcome of
the p:ropo;sed hospital issue. ;
ADJOURNMENT:: There. being no further business, the meeting was:,
adjourned at 10. 5 p.m.
i; ) a4 49
Chairman