Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/05/1972A PETILUMA CITY P,L1r ?KING' COMMISSION DE;CEIIEI✓P 5, 17,2. REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HAL PETALUMA,, CALIFORNIA PLtbtt ALLEGIANCE TO THE F1,,G. ROIL CALL: Comm. B a`lsIhao Bond 'Da1y Hood Papp Schm'e,` eaters STAFF: wi1liam: "C. NicGivern, D ' of 'Community Development Richard D.. 'A. Anderson, Assistant Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES CORRESPONDENC -E ENVIRON14ENTAL 1., Mote 6, p r o pos e d l ocation in the Denman F l a ts 'ASSESSMIENT Area in a M -1, ( Industrial) District. STATEMENT 2. Perry as Delicatessen, proposed location at 139 EVALU T-10NS: Petaluma Blvd. No- in a C - C (Central Commercial) District.. 3. Dr. Le Dane, proposed parking lot for office at 135 I�el St. in -a C - C (Central Commercial) Dist ct. 4. Suhdo 'Deve,lo.pment :Corp, proposed Sun Terrace Park P.U.-D. develox?ment _in area of East Washing- ton .& Fly B lvd;. 5`: Foodmaker, Iii c.,,, proposed Jac - in -the Box to be loca "tee? at 33'3 -8:41. East: T?7ashi.ngton St., in a C -N (Neighborhood Commer,cial.) District. 6. P4ci,f'ic Telephone & Telegraph Company, proposal to install, a portable building in the rear of service yard at 630. Jefferson St. for storage facilities, in a M -L. (Limited Industrial.) D'ist'- ri.ct. SITE DESIGN & 1. Per Pet „icatessen sa to design for proposed VARIANCE REVIEW location at. 13 Petaluma: Blvd. No in ' a C - COMMITTEE (;Central Commercial) Distric REPORTS 2. Dr. Leo Lane, site. design fo proposed parking 1,ot for off.i,ce at 135 Keller St. in a. C--C (Cen'tral C_ommerc.i.al.) District. 3. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Cog , site, design for installation of a nartable building in the rear of service yard at E30 Jefferson St. for storage facili ties., in a PI - ­(Limited Ihdu5- trial') District,. : =w ` P nq Commiss on Fggnda December" 5, 10 2 • g.n .. F or proph;sed �7ack -i.n -the Box to e ovate: a't 33=3 -841, East; T7ashinciton St. in a C " -N (Ne'zgh ,Commercial) District. variance:, Rbgtidsted to allow an increase in fpn'ce. height from 6 to 8 feet to permit a 6 ft slumpstone hlock' wall to be constru with an aeOUSti.cal sourid baf=fle 2 ft high along the rear property line of proposed Jac?. -in -the Box. PETALUMA Cont'inuat =ion of Public Fearing on request for rezon- PRnPRPTI 1 ng from a R- 1- 10,000` (One-,family Residential) .REZONING Da strict anti "A" Agricultural District to a. P.C.D. Z18-72: ( ,lanned: Cbrununity) District on property located on the northeasterly side. of_ Lakev "i1.le Highway between Casa Grande Road Frates T'oad.: PE,TALUMA Public 'T'eari to consider the ;Environmental Impact PROPERTIES- REVIEV7 T?eport � u bmi.tted in s,upPort - o£ proposed P ...G. D. OF :ENVIRONMENTAL, (Planned Community') n.i;str°i..ct, development located on IMPACT REPORT: the :northeaster.ly side of Highway between Casa Grande Road and prates T'o'ad.. GENERAL PLAN Proposed mp if�icat°ions to the Petaluma Area General MODIFICATIONS: P 1.an, with regards, to the Environmental Design. Plan and the Mas'te'r* Plan of, Zoning. OTHER BUSINESS: consideration for setting a Public Hear for the. fnurpose of nr.ezon - inct property in the City of Peta- luma known as the Casa Grande Annexation. Location of site ;. Founded by Ely, Blvd:., Casa Grande Road, and 'VcI?owe l l Blvd. ADJOURNMENT -2- , 7 4 A D D E N .D T C . E, N EY A ItANNING COMMISS100 MEETING DECEMHER 5p 1972 7:30 R.M. YOUNG STOKES ptiblic Hearing on re uest for rezoning from a RE'ZONING Z21 R"1 (Ohe.Family Residential) District and " �.grjcu Dis!trict t6 a.'CH-PUD (Highway Commercial-Planned Unit Development) Di5trict, located in the, area gene-rallv,bounded by Cas'a Qrandp Roa-d,. Lakeville Highway Ahd the southeast- er extension -of South McDowell Blvd. M I N U T E S PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER' REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M_ CITY, COUNCIL CHAMBERS,, CITY HALL PETALUMA, PRESENT: Comm. Balshaw, Bond, Daly, Hood, Popp, Waters ABSENT: Comm. Schmelz �. 1 1 5, 1972 CALIFORNIA STAFF: Richard D. A. Ander s on,.Assistant.Planner Charlotte Teeples, Planning Technician APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of November 21 1972 were approved with the following change. Page 6, regarding Comm.o nalshaw's concern about commercial uses covering some of the open space, he felt this would result in a density greater than the desired 6 units per acre, not less than as recorded. CORRESPONDENCE: Mr. Anddrsoh apprised the Planning Commissioners that on December 12, 1972 at 2:00 p.m.., the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors have placed • Petaluma's EDP on the agenda and suggested that any of the Commis-, ' iondrs that could possibly italre this meeting should attend to support it and. answer any possible questions. A question had been raised at a 'previous Plan- ning Commission meeting regarding some trailers parked at 1250 Lindberg Lane. Mr. Robert had been queried regarding this matter and his reply was read. In effect, he stated that Chapter 25 of the City Code had been repealed and he knew of no other r law, rule or regulation that prohi- bits the parking of trailers on the owner's lot. OTHER BUSINESS: Comm. Daly apprised the Planning - j Commission that the Lt Governor had signed the 120-day morator- ium regarding Environmental Impact Reports and felt that we should get a clarification from the City Attorney as to its exact con.text. Chairman Popp requested Mr. Anderson to initiate a query. ENVIRONMENTAL, ASSESSMENT Mr. Anderson read the staff report which included STATEMENT EVALUATION renlies from various agencies requested to help MOTEL 6: evaluate the assessment statement. In accordance with their comments, the staff recommended the 1-- 11 P' - anning • December Commission Minutes 5, 1972 PERRY'S., DELICATE SES EN SITE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STATEMENT EVALUATION': 'DRI. T. LEO LANE - SITE DESI'GN REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STATEMENT EVALUATION: - tnvirohmental As's e s.sme Statement that there is no significant environmental impact be accepted. Comm. Daly made the motion that the s c tatement.th is no environmental impact lie accepted and the motion was seconded by Comm. Waters. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 Conmi, Bond advised the Pl&nhinq Commission that. the Site Design Review Committee ' had directed* the applicant to modify the roof and also to change the location of..the sign. Accordingly, .this site design would be considered after the - modified site design plans are submitted. Mr. Andekson read the staff report regarding the Envitonmental Assessment Statement which recom- .mended that it be accepted as having no signifi- cant environmental impact. Comm. Bal made the motion that the Environmental As , sessment Statement that there is no significant environ- mental impact be accepted and Comm. Daly seconded the motion. AYES .6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 The Site Design Peview approval of the site d cited in their report. on the barriers and it ing barriers should be proposed. Committee recommended esign with conditions as A clarification was made was acjreed that the park- accepted as the applicant Mt. Anderson read the staff report recommending that the Environmental Statement be accepted as having no significant environmental impact.. Comm, Bal.shaw made the motion that the Environmental Assessment Statement that there is no significant environmental impact be accepted and the site design be approved with conditions a cited. Comm, Waters seconded the motion. AYES '6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 SUNCO DEVELOPMENT - CORP. Or- . . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT that STATEMENT: been 1972 from .k,hder ' son- informed the Planning Commission E the nvircra, . Y , , iental. Assessment Statement had . sent out i r evaluation on November 20, and that replies. had not yet been received the FFIA Land the two school -2- __1 I Pilann. I ing Minutes Dec'dmb6r 5., 1972 distrrict§, or he F' der'al Avi�f:ib o­)Vdrdihstra - tio'n,6 HO a1§6 t indicated 'that a the fi r*'e�lli City Engineer the i: - - I. C -1 - T'. gIne6r and the SofiomA ., ouilt�rvatdt' Agency were unfavorable. with -re#,AIkd­:tb `Y.16bdiiq and, ekosio4, Control. The staff recommended that evaluation delayed unti further, , rep - Lies , are received. Chairman Popp queried the ap plicant if this would hinder him.. Mr. LaPointe took the, - f r6pfel sentind Sunco DeVe,lopment Corp.; and 1§t,ated this devdl has been pending for some time. "He' I expressed his, desire to have the rezoning and the s o design placed, on the acrenda'as, early as poasible-; Comm,. Hood stated. that as h_e� ke'da there. 'was a, big questI g the, density that.' ,.on regAr. .1- d r6cruired an opinion fr6ta the City Att6rhey. Mr LaPointe indicated this response from the City, .Attor , ney had been obtained by the staff some time Ago. Comm Daly felt that the City Attorhey should be' queried that if we woti f ollow the' City - quide- p lines regarding the EnVi-ronmeAtal. lmoact Aeports would've in effect be breakin'g State lave. Chair- man Popp requested 'the 'Planning staff to Initiate such a query with the - reply to be forwarded to both the City Council, and. the PlAnhing Commission Comm. Waters felt that, the reply from the Federal Aviation Admin istrati-on was quit- 0 " important and - Mir. LaPointe remarked 'that the particular strip that the FAA might possibly be concerhdd:w"th had been de'leted from the Plans.' Comm. Wate'ra made, the. motion that the evaluation of the Environmental Assessment StAtement be continued uuntil the next meeting' and. the staff should take action to obtain the missing replies. _ Comm.... Bond seqQnded the motion. AYES 6 NOES - 0 ,ABSENT . 1 'Comm.. BalshAw queried whether addition-al action should 'be taken and Comm,, Daly responded that it was: the 'City' :fit tornby's opinion that Environmen- tal As"se-s-sment Statements should be handled before re'zonings. -3- 'in Planning dommi8sion M -utes Dec-ember 5, 1972 FOODMAKER, INC. VARIANCE- COMMITTEE REPORT: rb,ODMAKER - 81Tr DESIGN - 'REVIEW & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STATEMENT EVALUATION: A variance Was request.ed t6 allow an. increase•. in fence height from -6 to '8 feet to permit a 2 foot. high sound baffle to be placed on.top of. a - 6 foot high slumpstone wall. The Variance,: Committee re- commended approval of the variance.- It was noted Ithat the sound baffle would be required if the adjacent property owners coml l '" l n reg,ay'ding the noise., Comm. Waters made a the motion that the variance be approved and Comm. Hood seconded the Motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT I Mr., Anderson read the report of the Site Design Review Committee recommending approval with coed itio'ns.as cited. - He also read the Staff report recommending that the Environmental As7sessment Statement be accepted as having no s,ignifican'tenvironmental impact. A brief discussion followed regarding entrances, exists, and placement of sign's. Comm. Balshaw als'o stated that cons,.ideration should be given to sign illumination So that it would not be glaring. Chairman Popp - queried the. applidant if he had an vt 1' i i n I to add. .Barry Culbertson took the floor:representing Foodmaker, Inc. He - the Commission that Poodmaker was willing to accept all the- conditions of the 'report.. He agreed that illu- mination,df the siqn should not have a glaring effect. He also o said thev would install the - batfla now if the Planning Commission thought it necessary, but they thought the 6-foot. wall would suffice and the appearance of the site would be better without the baf-'f2e, Comm- Bond made, the motion that the Environ- mental Assessment Statement that there is- no significant environmental impact be accepted ,and that the ts,ite design be appro�led - with con- as cited,. Comm. Waters seconded the motion.. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT I 0 -4- Planning Commission Minutes • Dddembe l r 5, 1972 P.AC1FI TEL. & TEL. CO. Mr. Andbr§bn. read the ntaff report recommend— DESI ' GN REVIEW ing theiEnvironmental.Assessment Statement atement be COMMITTEE R & -accepted as. having. no .significant environmental 'ENVIRONMENTAL ASS - ESSMENT impact. He. also informed .the Commission STATEMENT EVALUATION': the S,i-te_De:s).xx.n Review Committee had requested il .7nation from the applicant and he had indicated he would' be present tonight to furnish it. Ban Clothier from Pacific Tel, & Tel. Company took the floor and furnished the information that the building was, a port-able modular type of plywood construction and also furnished a bro- chure. for the Comm ' is,sioners to review. He also b stated the uilding would be painted to match the present redwood stain color building, The Chairman asked if the:,bui,lding would be in conformity with the Uniform Building Code and Mrs Clcthier said it would be. The information was als,o furnished that a new roof would be installed and that it would be placed on a concrete foundation. The floor had' been strengthened to support the anticipated storage ioad., Mr.. Anderson remarked tha-t the Building Inspector had indicated no problem on A tempo - raty basis, and if it would have all the require- ments of a periftanent structure it would be up to the Planning Commission to consider if they would wish to make it a permanent building, Comm. Bals made'the motion that the Environ- mental Assessment Statement- that there is no significant eftvironmbntal impact be accepted and that the site design be approved. Comm. Waters seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1, Mr. Anderson advised .the . a-t this time that the applicants for the next item on the agenda, Petaluma Properties, were not present. He added they had been informed of Mr. McGivern's request that.this hearing would have to be con- tinued because of lack of replies on the EIR evaluation. Ir view of this, his, Mr. Anderson requested that �_ Generai Plan amendment be heard first. Comm. Daly informed the Chairman that in regard to this rezoning case he would like to have the following information, in writing: -5- "P lanninq Commission Minutes December 5, 1572 1. What constitutes a Neighborhood Commercial use? 2� Does the proposed' K-Mart fit the Neighbor­­- hood Cormne.-r-cial district: GENERAL PLA Miss Chaklotte Tpeeples read. the staff report MODIFICATIONS: regarding the proposed - modify to the - Petaluma Area , .General, Plan with regards ­to the Environme,nta;1.:Des1gn Plan and the Master Plan of „Zoning and pointed out the proposed modifi-' cations on the Geheral Plan. She clarified that the General Plan does not have to be consistent wj,��A the EDP .in all cases,, but 'it must be consistent with the zoning. A gre'at deal of discussion followed regarding the key definition of medium density and the designation of the �°o and transitional 'u-ses. Mr. Anderson remarked that the State law requires that the General Plan and the - zoning map be consistent with each other and-that the EDP is an element of the Gene .ral Plan, but it is. a short- range plan. The General Plan is something we are .shooting at, a long-range plan. It is felt that the EDP will help elp to bring the General Plan and the zoning plan in consistency with each other. He further explained that the General Plan could not be indicated the same as the EDP unless we want to limit future development to the short- range designations on the EDP and hold the City at that level for a number of years. He felt that the EDP could indicate a larger number of dens0Lties since it is, a short-range, precise ty pe 'Y' of plan, but''that the General Plan could not be that specific since it is a long-range 'planning tool. Comma Balshaw felt that the General Plan and the EDP should be consistent inasmuch as the EDP is specificallyfor five years' growth and the General Plan &.s for up to 1985 and lie thought we should work on1V with the EDP. He also dis- Agreed stron ' with the medium density designa r c ore, tion of 6 o .e, because a medium density of, onlx 6 had been agreed on for the Planned Resi- .dential des i'gnattion of the EDP. -Xi Teeples informed him that to indicate another higher _61- P.1anning Commiss ion minutes Dedotber 5, 1972 density on the. General Plan would be too ..complicated and not flexible enough. Chairman Popp agreed that the General Plan should remain flexihle and that very little changes had actually.been made as far as the overall aesign, A recess was citpille)d at 9:35 p.ro.., and the meeting readjo at 9:45 p.m. At this tire: Miss Tejeples requested recommenda- tions or modifications to the proposal. Addi_ tional conversation followed regarding the foregoi subjects, after which Comm. Balshaw made the motion that the revision to the General Plan be accepted for the new designation of a Central Urban Use.area and that the staff further modify the General Plan to make it coincidental to the EDP designations within the of the EDP, except for the area shown as Cents ".1. Urban Use. Comm. Waters seconded the mot -0 Comm. Bond queried why lie had not I.acluded the Transitional Use designation. Atter considerable discussion Comm, Balshaw modified his motion to include the acceptance of - the Transitional Use designation, The full motion is that the revi- sion L,o the General Plan be accepted for the new designations of Central.' Urban Use and Transitional Use, and that the , staff - further modify the General Plan to make it coincidental to the EDP'designa- tions within the limit of the EDP, except for the areas shover as Central'Urban Uge and Transitional Use. Comm.. Waters seconded the amended motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT -1 PETALUMA PROPERTIES Mr.. Ander.' remarked that as previously stated,. REZONING Z18-72 &: replies had not been received from the evaluators REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL of the EIR. Be further advised that the City IMPACT REPORT: Engineer had begun the review of the EIR and had verbally indicated that some areas of the report would .require further informat-Jon from the appli- cant. 14 I r. Anderson rezoning was residential Z <plained to the Corpatission that taqueste-d-_ fo both the proposed I demelopment and the proposed site thiE of -7- Planning . Commission Minutes pecembet 5', 1972 the KMart,, which As essentially a Oortion of the Petaluvia Properties development,. A rezoning to CH-PUD has been requested for the K' -Mart site, 'but.the PCD rezoning action would have to be considexea before the CH-PUD.could be con sider6d. Mk Anderson fufther advised that the area the­ CIVI-PUD zonl rag is requested for consists of a larger area than i,s,shown on the EDP for commer- cial use and it would require, a request for change to the .E'DP. Chairman Popp asked if the applicant had.,binformed een inrmed of the DP inconsls,.- ..tency and Mr. Anderson told him that he had been,, adv-iised last ,.May or June that it mould' have to be cha . ngpd, and did-not know why action had not. been taken. In view of the foregoing, Mr. Anderson stated it was the reQommendlation of the staff. that - the Pub Ilc be continued. Chair.-man Popp, requested that the staff inform the app"Lic&nt of further- requirements flor continuance of this rezoning. all of the re- Gomm. Sa.lahaw wished to know i qui for this PCD had been met and was rota armed that they had ,been submitted, Comm.. Y."Z",Ashaw expressed his opinion that a complete pac age of all the information should be sub- mitted to the Commissioners for review before they were asked to take action on the rezoning. Comm,. Waters made the motion that the hearing be corAinued until such time that all the informa- tion is made available to the staff and the Punning commissi that is required. Comm. Daly seconded the motion. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT YOUNG &: STOkItS ' REZ'6NING Z2'1 - : Public Hearing was requested for reloning fromia. R-1-10,000 (One-Family Residential) District and "A" Agricultural District to a CH-PUD (High- wa ' y Commercial Unit Development) District, located in the area generally bounded by Casa Grande Road,, Lakeville 14iqhway 'and the south- easterly extension , Sotith McDowell Blvd . in view or tl=-.? foregoing Petaluma Prwc�perties rezon: . Lng facts whiph also pertain to this xezoninq Mt. A, reccmuyiended that the Public Hearing Oe opened and con-cinued. PIannincr Commission MI-nu. tes • December : 5, 1972 Cha 'Popp opened the Public Hearinq. COMM. Balr-haw remarked that this was an improper hearing as the 'PUD hea� could not be held until the PCD hearing was held. Mr. Anderson explained that the. application was. made on the­- same d" that we had to get the notice to the paper so th'at it could be heard .concurrently with the PCD rezoning and the applicant was told what additional information was needed, but had failed to supply it, He also stated that he was vo7r iting a letter to clarify thel points that were need8a from the applicant. 0oYmn., Waters. made the motion that the Public flear, , ing be -continued until it could be properly :6oit idered and C6mrn,, flood seconded the motion. s AYES 6 NOES 0 ABStNT 1. OTHER BUSINESS: Considera was relqtested for setting a Public Hbarknj foi the purpose of prezoni-ng property in the City of Petaluma known as the Casa Grande Annexation. Comm. Daly expressed his feelings than the Commission should have the information required for an action of this type two weeks before so that the material could ' be. reviewed before the Public fleaKing, and that nothing had been made 'qVaiIable this evening., A short discussion followed regarding the area involved and it was decided that a Publi-c Hearing would be,s�cheduled when all information was.received for the P.Ianni,nq Commissioners to review. ADJOURNMENT.: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. -, 91-