Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/17/1972.A . G ;E. N ',A . 4 PETALUMA-CITY PLANNING COMMISSION' REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS', CITY HALL OCTOBER 17, 1972 7:30 P. M. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.' , y ROLL CALL: Comm. BaIshaw Bond DA Hood. Popp S . WaTer STAFF: Richard.D;., A.® 'Anderson, Asbistant.'Plahnek ELECTION OF OFFICERS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE" SITE DESIGN COMMITTEE REPORTS:. 1® Golterman &- .,Glazier Duplex at 41`4 Upham. 2. Ron Hardy - Duplex , at 14 Cherry 3. Robert E.* Miller .- Boat, triailer, , recreational vehicle storage lot. at - 9'60- Lakev Street C Earl Andersen Further -rev °ew , of landscape - for a duplex at,-225-Hi h-Stree NEW ZONING continuatio ' n--G-f Public Hearing. to consider introduc- ORDINANCE tion, of a, new - toning Ordinance. to. replace Zoning RES. 13-72 Ordinance 662 N.C.S. OLD ADOBE UNION Use permit to allow school district administrative, .SCHOOL offices ta° be located in an R-1-6,-00'0 (S ingle-Family USE PERMIT Residential) District at 84.9 crine,11a 'Drive (at. Alb in U15-72 Way) 'PETALUMA Request I Ot f rom a R-- l-'10 J0 0 0 (One- Family PROPERTIES Residential') District, and "'A' I ' (Agkicu� lturAl): Distr ict REZONING to a P.C4,D-i (,P.,lanned ConiTiunity)-bistrict-'on property Z18-72 located- on the;-northea'sterly side ,-- , �.Lake'ville High- - way between Casa Grande Road and F'rates Road. Planninq Commiss Agenda TRW ­. - - - �_ .1 - Commission .October 17, 1972 RON NUNN Request -for .rezoning from, .,a 0 (one!­ Lkis.trict' to a Pi,"U.D,. (Planned RE IN Family Resi dential) , Z17-72: Unit ' Develo ...District )brl property located betVe6h Siihuman. L'aheL -and West, .Street in the vicinity _of..J�uniper .'Court. LAND USE Land, use classification f6t area located in.the CLASSIFICATION :s special pldnning..4rea on L,akevlll,e Street and Payran FOR LAKEVILLE Street Agricultural, District-. STUDY AREA: ADJOURNMENT ��Y4 M I N U T E S • PETALUMA.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 1972 REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm. Balshaw, Bond, Hood, Popp, Schmelz, Waters ABSENT— Comm. Daly STAFF: Richard De A. Anderson, Assistant Planner ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Comm, Schmelz nominated_ Comm, Popp for .: e Chairman and.it' was sdconded by Comm. Balshaiaa No'• othir nominations - were made and Comm. Hood made the motion' that nomina- tions be closed.® 'Comm. Bond seconded the motion. Comm. Popp is therefore. the newly elected Chairman. Comm, Popp nominated Comm. Balshaw for Vice- Chairman and it was seconded by Comm.' Schmelz., Comm. Schmelz nominated Comm. Hood'" and it was seconded by Comm. Balshaw, Comm. Balshaw moved that nominations be closed and Comm. Schmelz seconded the motion. A written ballot disclosed Comm. Hood as'the' new Vice- Chairman. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:; The minutes of October 3, 1972'w6ke approved,.. as mailed CORRESPONDENCE: Mr. Anderson apprised the commission of an annual meeting of The Containerization Insti- tute, Inc. in San Francisco on November 14 and 15, 1972, the theme of which is "Team - work for Increased Productivity in Transpor- tation-Solving the Distribution Jam -Up," and advised that registration forms were avail able for those interested. A letter from the City of Novato to the California Division of Highways was read by Mr. Anderson which expressed their desire to have. criteria established which would permit oil company logo signing on the state free - ways for - circumstances such as the Novato Bypass - Highway 101 project now under con- struction.. The commission felt that a similar letter should be written reflecting Petaluma's position and agreement with the City of Novato' Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes Oetob.er 17, 1972 Letter from the.City.Attorney dated October 6, 1972 "was read by''Mr.*Anderson, the subject of which was Environmental 'Impact'Reports- Implication of Mono County Case., It was the City Attorney's opinion that building permits be issued only under the conditions proposed.by'San Francisco and that any rezonings which contemplate development should be held in" abeyance. In view of the City Council's determination to continue to is -sue build. ng "permits in their meeting of October 10, 1972, Mt. Robert proposed a.warning to'be* attached to building permits ssued"stating'that'appli- cants may be enjoined from completing their" building or project or other legal action might be taken,.. This warning was also read by Mr. Anderson. A letter dated October'l2,*1973'from the City Attorney in reply to a question raised by the Planning Commission.regarding zoning being consistent with the General Plan, Government Code Section 65860 was read by Mr. Anderson At this time it was determined to`take up the matter of the three Sonoma County Referrals after the other Agenda items are heard as no response was given to an inquiry directed to the audience to indicate their interest. SITE DESIGNS: 1, Goltermann & Glazier - Duplex at 414 Upham 2. Ron Hardy - Duplex at 14 Cherry'Street 3. Robert E. Miller - Boat, trailer and rec= reation vehicle storage yard with gasoline sales for storage users only at 960 Lake- ville Street Mr. Anderson read Committee reports all of were with conditions. the Site'Design on these three recommended for Review s °ite designs, approval 4. Earl Andersen - Request for of landscape plans for a duplex at 229 High Street Mr. Anderson stated the committee had found the subject plans to be and recommended approval. 2 Petaluma City .Planning Commission. Minutes October 17, 1972 Comm.. Waterserecommend'ed approval of the above site designs with conditions as cited and Comm. Schmelx seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 (Chairman Popp asked to defer the 'Zoning until after the Old - Adobe Union School District Use Permit Public Hearing.) OLD ADOBE UNION SCHQOL A Pulalic' Heaiiiig .. wa5 held on application for DISTRICT USE PERMIT a Uso Permit to'allow `school district admin- U15 -72 istrative offices't© be located in an R -1- 6,00'0 (;Single- Family'Residenti.al) Dis- trict at 849'Cr nella`nrive.` Mr. Anderson read the staff report which recommended approval'with'eonditions:. Chairman Popp opened °the Public - Hearing. Mr. McGowan, the Old­Adobe Union District S'aperintendent;'took'the floor and indicated conditions cited in the staff report had alydddy" been mete Comma Balshaw inquired if the .school district owned the remainder of °the property and was told by'Mr. McGowan that they owned all of the property on Crinella Way and intended*to develop the rest of the area into a green area, Three members of the audience inspected the map and expressed their concern over the . present problem of children and motorcycles in what will be the park area, the possibil- ity of increased traffic and parking; and future development other than green area. Mr.. McGowan answered that the development of the green area next summer should alleviate the problem of the children and motorcycles. He anticipated that traffic and parking would not be a concern as offices would furnish indirect services only and employ only 5 or 6 people. No future development had been recommended for the green area. Mr. Ande.•son assured those concerned that any future development of the green area w ild Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1972 have to come before.the Planning Commission for approval. Chairman Popp.cl.osed the Public Hearing. Comm. Balshaw made the motion to approve the Use Permit as it was proposed to be developed and Comm. Waters seconded th'e motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 NEW ZONING Chairman Popp introduced the new proposed ORDINANCE zoning ordinance. RES. 13 -72 'Norman Rollins.. Larry Bernauer', John J. Icing; and Dori Waite from the audience stated their opinions that copies of the proposed zoning ordinance should be made - available`to'the public. They were,advised" that it'could be -- reviewed in the Planning Department office and that volume.of the publication prohibited furnishing .a copy" to all who` requested -„ one. Chairman Popp asked for a show of hands on those who wanted copies of'the proposed - zon- ing ordinance and four people responded. Jack Davies from the. audience recommended only the changes be' published" for the public,­ but was told this was.not feasible as it would require copies of the old ordinance. Comm, Bond also felt that copies should be made available to the public. John J. King remarked that,the C -H District as it exists in the old ordinance covered many,items not in the C -H District in the'new ordinance and 'requested ..an explanation. - Mr Anderson explained that4the C -S' classification was eliminated because of the feeling that some of those uses would be appropriate in the C =H District and others would be more appropriate in the Limited Industrial District. Mr. Anderson suggested reviewing the changes to the proposed ordinance and asked if the . commissioners had any questions on them cating this could be a good-starting point. Chairman Popp agreed; however,'Comm. Hood interposed that the entire new zoning ordinance had not really been gone over and that he did not feel that just the changes could be reviewed first, Penalama.Cty Planning Commission Minutes October 17. 1972 Comm. Balshaw q.uostioned whether the new zon ing ordinance should have an architectural review and Mt. Anderson expressed that it has been made. possible. Comm. Hood felt that'. Section 26- 400,'Site Plan and Architectural Approval, should be.more explicit. Comm. Balsh'aw also questioned if the zones were compatible with the EDP and "Mr. Anderson felt. that they were and that. the'zones proposed and uses included in them were as close to future requirements as-possible. ' .Mr. Bernauer from the audience felt that the proposed ordinance was too general and would broaden the scoPe of'*what could - b e" built in' a commercial area and thereby 'lose control. Comm. Balshaw felt that geheikal,zation was appropriate and that the Planning Commission and the City Council- should be left to make specific interpretations. Mr. Bernauer queried if bars or dance hall.types would be allowed under the proposed ordinance in a neighborhood shopping center and asked for a definition of shopping center. Comm. Balshaw answered that this would be interpre- ted on contemporary standards. Mr. Anderson added that although some use designations are general there are -s ©me veiy specific provi- .sions for or against,certain uses, and_that bars were called out as not allowed. He also read'the definition of shopping centers on page 201 of the proposed, ordinance and informed Mr. Bernauer that bars and dance halls were covered specifically under Section '1.3- >40a. ""as Conditional Uses. Comm. Waters that paragraph 11 -204 be added*stating`that"'nothing could be located in a shopping center that was not mentioned in 201, 20`2, or 20.3 above.. Mr. Bernauer went on. to s ay that in a C - zone. at the present time a grocery store is not. permitted and asked how the planning staff could come out and say that.there.is going to be a grocery store.in that particular Mr. Anderson explained that under contemporary conditions in many highway commer�:ial situations certain types of commercial uses are deemed ..appropriate within the highway i.ocations such as food markets, etc.. as well as many semi- service type customer set'vice uses 5 Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1972 Comm. Waters made a. motion that the Public'- Hearing be : continued to the next regular meeting and that copies of the proposed zoning ordinance be made ava1lab'le - to the public so that they would have time to review it and formulate questions. Comm. Balshaw seconded the' motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 A `r.ecess was called at, 9'.2'0 - p - . m *and the i. Plannng'Commssion readjouuned at 9:30 p.m. PETALUMA PROPERTIES Request for rezoning from R 1-1;0;000 REZONING Z18 -72 District and "A" District.to'a PGD District on. property located on the northeasterly side of Lakeville Highway between Casa Grande Road and Frates Road'. Mr. Anderson introduced maps showing the project and read the staff report. Chairman Popp opened the Public Hearing. Mr. ohn Lounibos, Attorney for Petaluma Properties took the floor. He remarked that he realized the importance of the effect of the State Supreme Court action on the Mono County case and wished to know if the Plan- ning Commission.want:ed to hear his testimony at this time. He further indicated that if the commission would prefer, he would wait until the next regular meeting., before which' time a fully documented report of.the effect of this rezoning and development'as far as environmental impact is concerned would be. submitted. He indicated his clients would prefer to wait 'and submit the whole package at one time. Comm. Balshaw recommended his .report.include a specific traffic analysis and that this rezoning be continued at the next regular meeting and be placed on the agenda after the zoning Ordinance. Comm. Waters made the motion that the Public Hearing be held over until November 7, 1972 providing ruling on the Environmental Impact is received, and C&c - an. Hood sez:ondad the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 Petaluma City Planning Comm ission Minutes October 17, 1972 RON NUNN Request for .'rezoning from a R- 1- 10,000... REZONING District. 'to a .PUD. District: on, property Z17 -72: located between..S'chuman Lane and West St. in the vicinity .of *Jun per Court. Mr. Anderson, read_;the.:staf`f� report recom- mending approval and „Chairman Popp opened the Public Hearing. Ron Nunn took. the .f loor :in support-of the devel.opment..and..volunteered to answer any questions. Mr. Thomas .Ga fey., ..a neighbor.,, i nformed the commission of .a-',roadway easement to his property. through..the_ subject - parcel. and concern about road' .maintenance..responsibility and' the..retainance of the oak trees. A dis- cussion e. nsued. .regarding._perpetual.easement rights over. the ..sub ,ect parcel to,.protect the, ingress and egress t o...Mr . Gaf f ey pro- perty, :He_.was_ informed .that the. zoning had no effect. on any:.lega'1 - . - rights o v er - .this: property e:.. '.Nunn.voiced his assurance. that.. all .existing' oak.. trees would 6main. A further..discussion.was held on.the possi- bility..of providing .pede'strian access to the school. Mr,...Jadk Davies and Mr. Gaffey also inquired. the property's future outcome . if the developer did no't follow through with this project and a short discussi ©n followed after which the public hearing was closed. Comm. Bond felt th :s. project shou be held in abeyance until the: Environmental Impact Report requikement was clear and Comm. Waters remarked that any action taken tofiight would have to be rdtif ed'by the City Council. Comm. Hood felt that the commission was on touchy ground legally. Mr. Anderson referred to the 'City Attorney's statement that suggested a "Warning statement be put on building permits and that a similar'statement could be put on this rezoning case. Chairman Popp asked if this project was subject to ithe Residential Development Evaluation Board and was told that it was. ' 0 7 Petaluma City Planning Commis ion Minute's October 17, 1972 Comm. Balshaw made the motion "that the rezoning be approved and a Warning'state- r merit be included to the applicant. Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES' 5 NOES 1 LAND USE CLASSIF.ICA- TION F OR LAKEVILLE STUDY AREA: Mr. Anders ©n 'read the' p1anningstaff report recommending that the Special, Study Area - be ds g_ hated ixidustrial on� "the EDP and "`rezoned f rom "A" (Agricultural)' and "R. 1- 6,000`_'to M =t (Limited Industrial)' 'bi-itr., ct and„ the Specific Planning Area be designated as ser- vice-commercial on the EDP and rezoned from M -L (Limited Industral.) to C -H (Highway Commercial.) District. Maps were presented for review. 'Chairman Popp opened the Public Hearing, asking if prope owners present agreed on the proposed zoning. Mr. Victor DeCarli and Buchanan wished to reaffirm the location of their property and the proposed zoning. They were informed that the property was proposed.to be zoned M -L (Limited Industrial) and no objection was raised. Comm. BalshAw was concerned ablaut future plans for this area. A great deal of discus - son pursued'regardng the area development and its relationship to the zoning. Mr. John King and his client, Mr. Caulfield from Los Angeles, spoke regarding the property located Approximately ' at the intersection of Payran and Caulfield-Lane.... They ' were both in agree- ment with the proposal as submitted. The Public Hearing was then closed. Comm Schmelz and Hood.spoke on the intentions and reasons for setting up these areas as special study areas. Mr Anderson also explained that the area was being studied not only to establish the zoning but also to bring the EDP into reasonable consistency with the proposed zoning. The three resolutions offered for consideration by the Planning Commission were discussed. R Petaluma City Planning Commission. Minutes October 17, 1972 i Comm. Waters made a motion to change the subject areas on ah& EPP to industrial and service.commerc . al land use and the motion was : secorded by Comm. Schme'lz. AYES 6 _N:OE S 0' Comm.. Waters made a motion to reclassify the subject "A" and R- .1;- :6,.QQ0 Districts to M -L District and Covm,. Bond seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 Comm. Waters made a motion to reclassify the subject M -L District to C -H District and Comm. Bond seconded the motion. AYES 5 NOES 1 SONOMA COUNTY 1, Robert M. Castro - Use Permit application REFERRALS: for dog kennel at 942 Liberty Road, Petaluma, - in a "U" Dist ' A.,P. 421- 1146® Mr. Anderson read the request £or a private kennel, not commercial and not to exceed ten dogs and r;ecommezded that opposition be voiced in that this was tob intensive usage for 'this area and would not be compatible with the residential developmer t- Comm.. - Hood made a motion. that a letter be sent to the County of Sonoma opposing this application and Comm. Balshaw seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 2. Petaluma Calvary Cemetery - Variance Permit application .for mausoleum for entomb - ment-at Cemetery'Lane, Petaluma in an "A" District, A.P. #045- 141 =.34. Mr. Anderson read the variance request and` remarked that no hardship situation was found and he could find no substantial opposition., Comma Waters made a motion�`tha >t a letter be sent to the County of.S'onoma stating no opposition and Comm. Balshaw seconded the motion;. AYES' 6 - NOES 0' 3. Carl Paula Variance Permit application for reduction of unclassified frontage require - ment from 125' to 100' at 64 King Rbad, in .a U District, A ®P. #1.13- 02 -06. Mr. A derson remarked that the recently adopted EDP for"thd City recommends rural agricultural use for this general for a period of 5 or more years and the proppa6d reduction would result in�more urbanization than the plan indicates. Comm. Schmelz made a,motion that a letter of 9 1 1 f M Petaluma City Planning.Commission Minutes October 17 1972 opposition be directed to the County of Sonoma and. Comm. 'Wa6ters. seconded the motion. AYES 16;_ NOES 0 OTHER BUSINESS: .Comm $ alshaw brought out the fact that at the .June..20., 1972 meeting of. the Planning Commission a. r.ezoning.,applicaton request to .change .property..from an R -1 -6,000 District to a C -N District, in the So. McDowell Blvd. area.had.been passed... This application was later..defeated.by the City Council. The EDP indicates this area.....as , nei.ghborhood commercial land..use:.and Comm,. . . Bal:shaw ,feels that inasmuch _as. it, was. the...strong opposition of the public against. this-area.-being zoned C -N that had helped.defeat ..the.previous application, that some .action should be..taken__to change the EDP to .. reflect '.,planned.,.residential. use before the.::area. is. zoned.-- C- N .by .default in January 1973.. , He felt. that...a.. Public Hearing should be held as..soon as possible.. Chairman Popp ._suggested...a, complete:-.review of the matter and .appropriate-.fo1low.. =up action. ADJOURNMENT 10