HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/03/1972A G E N" D A
PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3,
REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P,M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA,
ROLL CALL: Commi Bal — Daly Hood' Popp
, STAFF: William Cu McGivern, Director of Planning.
Richard D., Anderson, Assistant Planner.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CORRESPONDENCE
SITE DESIGN & VARIANCE COMMITTEE REPORTS
1 972
CALIFORNIA
Schmelz -- WaLers 0
Variances: 1,
Donald V,, DeCosta - 613 "1" Street-
2.
Jerome & Harry Jacobson - 6 Brookside Way
:ZONING ORDINANCE
Pu Hearing to consider modification to Zoning
-MODIFICATION
Ordinance 662 NiC,S_ by adding SHOPPING CENTERS and
RES, 12-72
SHOPPING CENTER RETAIL SALES USES as a permitted use
to Section 6301 (a) in the C-N - (Neighborhood
Comatetdial) District: Section 6-302 (a) in the
C-(. (Cortimunity Commercial District; Section 6-303 (a1
in tho C-H (Nighway commercial) District; and
S6c.tion 6-304 (a). in the C-S (Service Commercial)
Di s t-riC.t.
NEW ZONING ORDINANCE
REST 13-72
1
Public Hearing to donsider of a new
- introduction
,zoning Ordinance to. replace Zoning Ordinanc'e
GfG2 N. Cs,S2
?A,,QLUCC!.,, FIOWE &
Public Hearing on Application fi led :by Paulucci, Howe
DeMARTINI
and DeMaftini to rezone a site from R-M-150.0 (MuLdLi-
REZ'ONING
forma ly Residential)-D-istrict to C-N (Neic lh-borhood
Z -15-72
CommerCial) Di st._ict at PT8 — rii-Ilis Street, 5 Alma
Court, and 7 Alma Court., AP Nos. 7-022-12; -21; -25c
OANTAS DEVELOPMENT Public Hearing or, Application filed by Qantas
Co. Development Co. to rezone approximately 38 acres from
REZONING R-1-6000 (one' fartiLly r'esidential) Dilstrict to PCD
Z' -16-72 (Planned Community) Di,s%trict on the southeasterly side
of t ^jLashinqton Square Shopping Center and McDowell Park,
extending easterly along Washington Cr6ek to McGregor
k 7 Avenue, AP Nos,n 7280-33; -40; - 42; -43a
O
ADJOURNMENT
M I N, U _T E S
PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION' OCTOBER 3, 1972
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA,,. CALIFORNIA
PRESENT: Comm. Bond, Daly, Hood., Pdpo.
ABSENT: Comm. Balshaw, Schmelz
STAFF William, C_.. McG.i.Arern.,..Pir'bctor�'.6f..'P.'ldh,ning
Richard D., A.. Anderson Atsidtant Planner
REV. BOND NEWLY Chairmdn.Wai6rs the Rev. G.
ELECTED COMMISSIONER: Roland -Bond "-,'as a newly appointed
C6mmission0r.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Acc(orling to,._,;the-..rules..and regulations
..of. the 'P.lAhning._.Commissi6n,,, the election
of - .officiars,.is_t0 take place the first
.meeting in-October.. 'However, due to the
ab'9dn'dd'_ regular commissioners, it
was decided ..to; hold this-election at the
n&xt.,meetin(j on October 17, 1972.
APPROVAL OF MIVUT9Si. The minu.te's,of.Septdmber 19, 1972 were
approved with-the, following exception.
Oh_paq6: 7., . :with .regard to the- Qantas De-
:_ velopment.' Rezoning,, first paragraph, the
portion 1h_;parenthesib..was deleted.
CORRESPONDENCE: .-Letter.of-,,Sdptembor;.20.,.19 the
Petaluma City 9chool District. regarding
the. public- hearing on October 17, 1972
on the e ih..thd Fair-
grounds,.U..S,.,101:.and Lakeville, areas
was read, by Mr......Mcdivern The Petaluma
,,',School str ; 'ict has two parcels of proper-
D
ty in these! ar.eas,, one on - 526 Jef
St. whic-h,serves as a maintenance yard-and
will continue.to,do so. The other parcel
consists, .of acres of land located
between - Lhe'. , .proposdd._Edith and Val lajj o Sts.
off . Jef tekson.- . The .planned use* f or 'this
Property, is the' development',of' a,'cont inua-
'tion high,sdho some 150 students.
They asked that in the possible rezoning of
either of the,..ab6ve, areas their use of
these properties be taken into consideration.
Petaluma City Planning Commiss-iori " Minu.tes
October 3, 197`2
Letter of ,Sep te mber 27; 1972 from. , the
Citi, Aga�i'nst� the Coastal .Initiative
Co,- Chairmen, regarding - the. controversial
measure on ballot_ on Pro-
position. jft.,. 0 ,Was read by Mr. McGivern.
„ They, :.solidited support in the opposition
of proposition No. 20 because of the
adverse effects in terms of public recrer-
ational opportunities, local property
taixes, planned ,publio projects, employ-
ment and traditional concepts of property
rights which they feel this proposition
would result in.
VARIANCE COMMITTEE 1. Donald V'.*'DeCoatd' 613 " "I" Street:.
Mr. Anderson read the Variance Committee
Report. Comm,,, Hood made'a motion to
approve'the report as written and Comm.
Popp seconded AYES 5 NOES 0
2 Jerome & Harry Jacobsen - 6 Brookside
Way Mr,. ,.And6rson . read the Variance
—Committee Report o Ling conditions Comm.
Hood. mace. , a ,motion to approve the report
as wrrittah and Comm. Popp seconded it.
AYES 5 NOES 0
ZONING ORDINANCE The scheduled Public Hearing was to
MO DIFICATION consider modification to Zoni�q O rdinance
RES. 12 --72: 662 N.C.S. by adding e �
Shoping'� Centers ar 3
Shopping'Center Retai;l`Sales Uses as a
permitted use to Sect 6 - 30.1(a) in the
C -N District; Section 64i302 (a) ,in t he C -C
District; Section 6 -303 (a ) in the C--H j,
District ;, and Section 6, 304 (a) in the C -S
Di'str,ictm Mr. Mc Givern stated that. the
game material was being'e:tructured in the
new zoning ordin�nc.e now under study
the P1'ann ng Commis -i and it would seem
at this time the efforts of the Public
Nearing would be duplicated. He therefore
recommended that this zoning modification
be deleted from the agenda and the chapters
ref . the 'new ordinance dealing with shopping
centers added as permitted uses in commer
cial areas be carefully reviewed.
OA
Petaluma City Planning Com6i sson.Minutes ,
October 3, 1972 j
Comm, Popp moved that the modification
be removed fr.om,. the agenda and be
'included in,. the' ,Public Hearing on the
..new zoning .ordinance consideration,
Comm. :Hood. , seconded the''motionm
AYES 5 NOES 0
PAULUCCI, HOWL Mr. 'Andef bft &V6 the staff report which
DEMARTINI REZONING gave 'the Jcecommdhdati6n 'that the rezoning
Z°15 -72: from a R_ *M'_15010 , District to a C-N District
''be disapproved 'in' view of the conflict
with the General Plan, the Environmental
Design Plan and the adjacent uses. Chair
man r state,d. that ' in February it ' is
require�dtd 'completely review they Environ-
mental Design P'l'an and the General `Plan and
make recommendations for.re'toning to the
.City ,Council He f elt th-st would be the
,proper time to possibly review the entire
block. Corncob Daly referred to the Envir
- onmental Impact Study and mentioned that
the requirements were were no.t clearly outlined
on -this as yet. Mr;. McCivern, stated that
this was a re,oen -t re3 quirement coming down
from .both State.kand Federal levels and he
felt .that. Mr Robert, City Attorney, would
have, to of fer.'his .opinion as to how far
reaching these ,requirements will be.
Chairman Waters opened the Public Hearing
and Richard Li.eb from 'Lieb & Quaresma tools
,the floor. M]r: Lieb stated that it was
'because of the Environmental impact Study
that ,he ,and. ,,his three clients we repre-
sented this evening. A. recent visit to a
,.' :. Jackmin -They -Box establishment in Santa Rosa
:. ._.,had, ,shown .him .what nearby residents of the
proposed Petaluma drive -in (approved by the
:Planning,'Commission) would. have to contend
w He stated that there was a consider-
able amount of traffic with resulting smoke.
and :fumes from automobiles Mr, Lieb feels,
as do:his clients, that this atmosphere is
not conducive to residential types living and
requested that the application for rezoning
of these three pace 1 1s still be ceanaidered e
Mr... Lieb stated that on.: the original EDP
r
3
Petaluma City Planning ,.Commis.aion..,,Minutes.
October 3, 1972
this a-rea...wa_s indicated, as R -N -1500 '
and -had, then been brought into the
,commercial.... zoning . due to pressures by
the .property:..owners . Mr, Lieb then
asked these, three parcels of be brought
,.' brought
into.this.study. ;Leases have not been
signed up for_the; proposed shops and
no financial commitment exists at this
time... He also...'Eftated that they did not
.intend, to contest:or .appeal, the' staff
report- recommendation,, they only wanted
;to. 'be,:. included ...in..,..the,.:upcoming EDP study.
. Mr..Howe .of 5 films "Co rt took the floor
and reiterated the effect of the Food
maker'proposa'l on Mrs. DeMartini, who had
bought her"home three months ago with no
„knowledge'.of this:rezon.ng and intended
to make it her permanent home. At this
,time she felt she would not care to
,continue..to live in this once desirable
area, if it was to be rezoned.
Mr. Paulucci of 198 Ellis St,. took the
.floor. He stated that Mr. Anderson had
remarked that "there would be a driveway
entering.,the Foodmaker property from
Ellis St. and had mentioned that this was
n_ot,a :commercial street,. Mr. Paulucci
inquired how .many, feet were -necessary
for',.a commercial, street. Mr. Anderson
.stated;. that-it ,was ..n6t_only the cross
sectional,width of_the street but also
the type-of-traffic normally traveling
... .the, street, Eris St,. continuing on
to; Washington ,on.. over.,'to. Madison St. has
residences ad,joining..it and also a school.
T he t that
These wess in:.•concrert with- each other .
:. compatible with commercial
traffic.. Mr. Anderson stated that , between
the school, children and the residential
uses it could create hazard; "treet
width desirable for a commercial area
where ''heavy traffic is involved;,. as on
Washington St., is normally four moving
lanes of.traffic and two parking lanes.
If, -Ellis St..is to be a commercial carry -
ing street,, then two, very wide moving
lanes should be provided plus parking
4
Petaluma City P'lanning.p6mmi
October 3, 1972
lane-s,.,..Mr,., Anderson did not. feel that
Ellis. St wav quite wide enough' to
accommodate.commercial or high volume
..traffic. Mr... also stated his
desire, to. considered in the EDP
study,. in. February.
Mr.. Howe...again... took 'the,.floor and stated
. n
th ' ' umber, of commuters
parked-on th••
..ea-st"' side of Ellis St. near
the :Washington St,...`intdrsdct * ion and a
number :of residents parked on 'the street,
there 'was. stil.1 a considerable amount of
ko,QM'L".Ieft for-moving traffic..
Ah.unidentified from the
.,;,audience . inquired....As.to the proposed
.4.!7* on. ,Ellis a - nd Washington and..."indicatdd .'there wou
_l&,be traffic
"
problems.,.res.u�lting.-therefrom.' Chairman
Watdrs_ hb.., could not answer that
question aa,',all,.wevere considering was
the,...,r,6 zoning.
The ..Public,.,,Hearing,.:wa-s..closed.
C6mm made:. the,.. motion that the rezon-
i ng. request.. be.• tabled - .at...this time. Comm.
.,Bond_s6cdnde&it,, AYES. 5 NOES 0
Mr. Lieb 'asked if thi.§ could in-
clude that. #,his: area''be reviewed and
,Chairman:.,Wdters aaid`tAat it could not
_as this _.heazinq was only f or rezoning;
.however.., this. area ..would. be reviewed. He
..stated. that, a. Public Hearing would be held
on, all of .,the xe,commenda ti on's on the EDP
and this .would be ,ona,_of them. He f urther
advised Mr',. Lidb"..-to-biB there to present
.his case.
',CoiTb.'.Popp.made the motion that the entire
,bouhdary,6fAlma°Cburt, Ellis St., E.
Washington St.., and E, Payran be included
in the update of,. the ,EDP which will take
place in -
Comm*-. Daily, seconded the motion. AYES 5
NOES 0
5
Petaluma, City .Planning Cormmistfoh Minutes
October 3, 1972
• QANTAS DEVELOPMENT CO.
REZONING,Z16-72:
recom-
'm'e'ndx`ng,.!':approval to. A.4. PCD District, in
view.
with the surround-
ing:.46vdlopment'. and, the fact that future
plahb6d,'.devd1bpmqht ..dons i4a'ration is
.design "t as. Ure',a,dolhpatible and desir-
;s
able'.'-final, dev6_16priieht,,_ Mr. McGivern
-submitt6d,.the plan to the Coiimissioners
_'tbmm� H66&.,.,adid, that it appeared .we were
dealing with two different zonings, resi-
de'ntial and.offibe commercial, and
n
08t o - 6d"'if, ,this' was permitted on the
EDP f or " this 'particular parcel.. . Also: if
ed t,:; a dential. could we still
it..,show I i 'a resi co
consider it.
Mr M cGivern thAt,the EDP showed,.
'it as a study area.. He. explained there
.are .,two ways to, review study areas. The
first way is if.the property owners.do not
'wish toprovide same kind of development
and Commission hat determined
thd,_area' be re then the staff
or assigned takes on
.the,' resloorisibiltty, of 'andlysing'the area to
;determine ::fu,ture.' land 'uses and zoning®, . The
.second..method is where you are dealing,.' with
raw land,and_' the, developer or property
own ' or wishes to submit an application.. In
thit.:cAss, a Planned, Community District
r a ubM
ezoning was si'itt . Y.
- I ., ad to the Planning
, 'Commission,showifig the owner's intentions
as to 'how heptoposes to deVelop the.
The purpose.bf this hearing is to study
the- toning application, and 'its, appropriate
.,,.land - .uses, as prescribbd in the , Planned
''
"'Community District zoning ordinance
Comm. Daly ask-ad how the: ,9.1 unit ..density
, .:figure was ;arrived at. Mr. Anderson
explainadAt was,by looking at a table
, applicant's plans that had been
submitted. It is' , an'bvek ' all density. of
the. -dwallin g Unit s,per acrt. - fbr the resi-
...,,.'dential area,p, not. the office area and is
just - an ov6ka'll average.
• 7
Petaluma City..P.lanning .Cbmmission. Minutes '
October 3, 1972
E
Comm'. .Popp asked .;if this was allowable
.under" the..PCD;. . Mr...Mcdiuern said that
in a,, City. Council. Meeting on January 31,
1972,;.;..,it ,had. "been; determined to change the
EDP map ,'.to. inc orpor,ate some of this sub -
ject 4r ea...as..a .high density"residenti.al
area with the:balance -to be ret ained as a
..plahned ;., development adiacent to Washington
.Squat, e-Shopping., Center..; The..matter had
bddn ;referred..;badk to..the.,.Planning, Commis -
.dsi.on.' .;that,.timd�.:' , ,Comm. Popp stated that
.,the'.way he.'.recalled .t, thia . bras considered
to..,.be an-ideal transition from,the residen-
tial, :to.:...the, commercial ..di atricta..
,Chairman-Waters : stated "' a;t this point ,that
What,. had to; be determined this .evening -was
.whether. ;. this, was, a ,;good are £or a PCD. or
.riot,,, and opened the Public Hearing,
Mr, Robert' O'Neel,, "'representing Young
_America .,Horne - ...took -the floor in favor
.of: this ".development. - He dwelt on prior
zonings and their results and of the start
of the Washington Square proje He
stated that his present proposal to erect
...,,the multi - dwelling units would act as a
buffer. between the residential area and
the commercial area. They had felt that
office. space was extremely desirous on
the east side.of Washington St. and would
also help'.to change - the. .traffic pattern.
With regard to '_brnging.more school
children. into. thi'a area, they did not
antic pate..,children in,. this .type, of
dwelling,., HOwever.,;, if it. was found to
be•necessary.,,they would provide tempo -
rary classrooms at. charge for the
sdhool:ing of the children. The units
proposed are 1 and r2�bedrooms. Nothing.
they had .,built, in the, past . had more„ .than
:nine ..tenths ;..of a child in school age the
Iast:'.one had only six t6nths.. T hey are
building e.,:00.0 sq ft.., lots in this',,,. are
cular' buffer zone, adjacent to the existing
R;I.�.1'.,single- family hou sing.
A recess was called at 9 :30 p.m.
7
Petaluma City, P lanning'..;t6mmIa's ion Minutes
October 3, 19-72
The 'PIAnAing-CommisSion. read j,ourned at
9,•A5, and Mr."- O"Ne the . .�.
Hoor st -
atedl, that."' he'hAd completed
hii§..',"..tt,Atetadhts,, and' ',.iisked if there were
:any. questions.
,-if he,. had discussed
.,thd',sdhoo -with the local
" board ,invo.lved'..and.iMr,. O'Neal
rep 1 ied,'.:'Ith at_he . had talkied with all of
.,th no, pt6b'lems'were
..,.
Comm.,. Dh ly. .Irought up the issue of the
AllotmentL Committee and Mr. O'Neal asked
if :.. it wort-14 be' reviewed. Comm.
Daly'.raplied they Would look at the
,.leVt6r'Mr;'. OINee'l, had from the school
- boak.d. Mr, , : O"NbeI indicated the appli-
dation'.itsblf does not leave room,to_say
how,. far. they had gone *into these parti-
,cular, problems,. Mr. ., MdGivdrn stated
that, - the unit allocations were not part
of this Public Hearing, There would a
spdcific,,meeting by the Residential
,,Allt)trhdnt'*";,Bb. -the applicants will
be - ab:le'to , dome in and make* acomplete
presentation,,bf their, development.
I Com;m'.'.' 'Da1y. asked if Mr. 0' Neel had been
.,involved "' - with,,Ehv'ironment'al Impact
that he
- .'had,'. been „,'selected by, the State government
- .to '.'rbpe,esent the builders of the area in
a'.bi,g m®eiing_in,_Los Angeles. The meeting
was: ab6ut` of I building in various
cbmrKUnitie.§.."._'He 'stated that it Is dif.fi-
dult.. to' say what. the Environmental Impact
Studies .will'.involve.
Nd.'.:6the_k,questiqn6', . .were `raised and Chair-
',man Waters closed. the 'Public Hearing.
Daly •.,s ta that with. regard to the
Environmental ." 'he did not
to hold back on
this evening but' that he felt
act should bo3.,,obtdin'ed' before it
wGht:7,to,..'the,.City,. Councild.
8
`Pe Planning. Commission
October 3, 1972
p - mad a.. motion that the.rezon-
i..ng,.j�e�,,a . e
ppr was seconded by
Comm;. Dal AYES 5 - NOES 0
NEW ZONING ORDINANCE Mr'.McGi.Vdrn.gave.an'oral report on the
RES. 13-72: new zoning ordinance.. He stated that
_.-the',commissionbegan over a year ago with
a n 1 titial, containing over
i* n
.200, .,paqe-s,'.of a,.'.n0w zoning ordinance. A
Zoning! ' ".Aeyiew was organized
about .4go composed of members f rom
the. Planning Commission, the Council and
staff per'sbnnel to go through the consul-
tant ° s draft of.,the proposed ordinance.
Recommendations and changes were made by
-the committee and it was put into a final
draft, and this is being presented to the
commission for review and acceptance.
The City Attorney had an. input into o-the
revision as.-far as the legal implications
are;.concerned'. This evening it was pro -
posed .tolgo through the revised material
and then later .the .entire ordinance.. Mr.
McGivern.,exp . ressed the importance of com-
pletion,of the new ordinance and asked
_ 0.1
whether the.commissolneks wished to con-
..tinue diadussloh this evening, plan a
special.meeting, or hold it over for the
:next, meeting because, of the late hour.
qomm. said he' thought it would be
best to.-review it'and then act on it at
..Chairrhan Waters said
the.'new ordinance would be put on the.
agenda 'f or .the:.. next. meeting and opened
..the Publib:Ueaking - for anyone who might
still be.prasent and interested.
Mt. Gary ..Baine.s, Shell Oil, Co'. , took the
f loor and-,stated that he,.had. been ..at one
of the. ordinance*, adVisory committee
. and,".he was _concerned' with one
.. ,chapter .of the. ordinance in particular
dealing with-the s s'ervic stations.
Mr. M.cGi.vern explained that Mr. Raines
had. appeared at t-a committee meeting on
July 14,1,1972 and the committee had been
elf , the . Ld'asterick the chapters
of the... ordinance having ref erense to
9
Petaluma City, Planning: Cofti:ssion :mi nu,tes'
October 3, 1972
se lf ; sterviCte,,;.gascal ne, stations and sug-
gestei3 the,,or�mmi ssior�; ; ew::theee
ahapt�r.s�.very .,carefully It was further
sucjgestec : that,, a ;memo -.be- obtained from
the:,'ire.,:,lepar.ttant. .the land use and
ahy; ".dk,it_itai temarks they. "Might have on
belt'l-set i ce';woar c o inl4oper'ated type ser-
vice.. citations:.. Some additional remarks
Vere„ offered' and . the commission, concluded
to ,preview this portion of the ordinance
in
depth. -
Cha rman ',Waters stated the Public hearing
would "be, carried forward to the next
meeting..
ADJOURNMENT No, f;:u rthdr business,.was. brought before the
commissio.0 , and ',tha .mee was adjourned.
FE