Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/03/1969JUNE 3, 1969 !®.Regular meeting of the Petaluma City Planning Commission was held on June 3, 1969, at 7:30 o'clock p.m.. in the Council. Chambers, City Hall, Petaluma, California. PRESENT: Comm. *Battaglia, Koenitzer, Perry, Stanley. *Comm. Battaglia arrived at 8:15. ABSENT:, Comm. Styles. STAFF: William C. McGivern, Director of Planning Andy Anderson, Assistant Planning Director. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - the,minutes for the meetings of May 19 & May 20, 1969, were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE Sonoma County Referrals Marie F.- Wolff., File-48.19 - use permit to allow a riding academy at 1815 Chapman Lane. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a letter to the So- poma County Planning Commission recommending that the permit be approved. _0 Norman -P. Higby, File 47 °81 - request filed to rezone property lo- cated on the east s.i e o.. State Highway 101, approximately 800 feet north of the southerly intersection of Kastania Road and State Highway 101, from "A" (Agricultural) to M -2 (Heavy Indus- trial) . The Commission voted unanimously to forward a letter to the Sono- ma County Planning Commission recommending approval of the re- zoning with a request that certain performance standards be com- plied with, as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Higby was present and voiced no-opposition-to :the requested conditions. SUNCO DEV. The Commission considered a request submitted by Frank CORPORATION LaPointe, President of the Sunco Development Corpora- RENEWAL OF tion, to extend the use permit granted him to allow a USE PERMIT convalescent hospital on property located at 2001 East FILE U16 -69 Washington Street, to a maximum possible time. In the staff report, Mr. McG'iver-n recommended that the use permit be approved providing the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission that another convalescent hospital is needed on the east side of the City and further provide satisfactory evidence that he will begin construction on the proposed development within the time allowed by the subject renewal. Comm. Perry made the suggestion that Mr. LaPointe contact the Southwest Sonoma County Health Facility Planning`Com- mittee (which is studying the need for various hospital -1- Planning Commission Mnu'te.s June 3, 1969 institutions within the sphere of influence of the Pe- taluma area and consult with them to possibly strengthen his case as to the need of the subject development. A motion, to continue the hearing at a later date to allow for contacting the Health Facility Committee, was in- troduced by 'Comm.. Koenitzer, seconded by Comm. Perry and passed by all members present: Mr. LaPointe was not present. The Commission directed the Plannina Director to contact Mr. LaPointe by letter informing him of their decision. MOBILEHOME Chairman Stanley continued the public hearing relative ORDINANCE to the propo.s "ed mob.ilehome ordinance.for the City of FILE 19 =69 Petaluma. Mr. McGivern. reviewed a rough draft of the proposed' ordinance as submitted by the City Attorney. Mr. McGivern further indicated that under Section 15 -101 of the proposed ordinance a subsection "c" should be added to state., "Sale & Display of Mobilehomes, 'provided that no structure shall be permitted on any portion of a mobilehome park which is used for the sale or display of the mobilehomes." Mr. Ron Simpkins, of MacKay & Somps, Civil Engineers, complimented the staff on the report. He made-the following comments regarding the report: a. Some consideration should be given as to controls or requirements for garbage facilities. b. He questioned the need for the 250 feet minimum frontage requirement, as long as the requirements for access are.met. c. It was his opinion that vertical curbs should not be required since they inhibit the movement of mo- bilehomes. d,. Coi Sider, on 'should be given as to controls on occupancy of mobilehomes prior to the completion of the required site improvements. Mr. McGivern stated that most of the items outlined by Mr. Simpkins could be imposed as conditions of approval of the - use _permit for a proposed mobilehome. park. After further discussion,.Comm,. Battaglia suggested that the City Attorney be directed, to prepare the final draft and a study session be he'l'd.':by. the Commission to review said final ,draft prior to a formal adoption of the or- dinanc:e by the Commission. The other members of the Commission concurred with Mr. Battaglia's suggestion.. -2- Planning Commission Minutes June 3, - 1969 0 1-1 GEEAL PLAN Chairman,Stanley opened the public hearing to consider REVIEW the proposed changes and.modif'ications to the General 1PILE 20 -69 Plan. Mr. Anderson, As,s.'stant Planning Director re- viewed the report in.general. A copy of the report is on file in the.Planning .Department office. Chairman Stanley then requested testimony from the floor rela- tive to the proposed changes outlined in the staff re- port. The following comments were forthcoming from the audience: 1. The concern over an expressway via Skillman Lane to Bodega was questioned when it is difficult to get from the east side to the downtown area. Mr. McGivern stated that the General Plan is a guide- line for future long range development of the City. By setting guidelines now, it will help control fu- ture development from being located ii. area of pro - posed street alignments. Mr. McGivern further re- minded the audience that one measure of the bond issue to go before the public for vote this month, involves the Caulfield Lane overcrossing which, if approved -, would provide another route to the downtown area. 2. Why is there no time projection in connection with the General Plan? It seems that only action is taken on a happening when it occurs. Mr. McGivern p ^_ted out that cities don't develop capital improvements until the need arises, especially when you are expending public funds. He further stated if a, City doesn't have a General Plan, some day when the need arises -to go to the State Highway Commission, for street improvements over or around a State Highway facility, the first thing they question is.if your .City has a- General Plan Improvement pro- grams a-te within the restriction of the City budget. Several people asked why Rohner_t Perk c getting a cloverleaf? Comm. Ba- ttaglia stated that the State had not approved it vet. 3. ?ton Simpkins, of MacKay & Somps, Civil Engineers, in- quired about new types.of_ developments such as planned unit developments, condominiums, etc., be indicated on the General Plan. Mr. McGivern stated that the General Plan does reflect these density ratios. The areas designated for me- dium density on the General Plan provides for planned unit developments, single family, multi- family and high rise developments. -3- Planning_ Commission Minutes June 3, 1969 4. Col. waters, President of the East Petaluma Civic Association made the following a. - : Apartments should be located close to shopping centers. b. Future planning should provide for more open space. C. Control set up for various types of housing (pertaining to valuation) . d. Builders should be required to construct the through roads in subdivisions. first before they start to develop on both sides of it. e. If you have a General Plan, stick to.it. (Re- ferring to rezoning industrial lands for mobile - home parks, etc.). Mr. McGivern & Comm. Koenit'zer stated the only way to regulate the type of house that can be built would be through control of lot sizes, an architectural control ordinance, or by self- imposed restrictions set by the developer. Comm. Koenitzer further stated that the City Council, not the Planning Commission, was responsible for rezoning the industrial land to R -M -1500 to permit the mob.lehome park. 5. The location of the Petaluma Plaza Shopping Center was questioned. Mr. McGivern answered that the shopping center would serve the people living in that area and the increased traffic would additionally substantiate the need for a.full interchange at East Washington Street and Highway 1011. 6. Mr. Bernauer-, referring to the relocation of'a.land use element as shown in the staff report, (commercial relocated to another area) asked who determines where a commercial zone is necessary? Mr. McGivern stated. that the General Plan is general. Furthermore, the area which Mr. Bernauer referred to (intersection of East Washington Street '& Ely Blvd. North) is now approved for a proposed convalescent hospital complex and "subdivision, not necessitating commercial identification. The Planning Director again noted that the plan is flexible and can be modified. 4_ I Planning Commission Minutes Ju ne; 3, 1969 10 7. The status of the airport was questioned. Comm. Perry answered' that additional financing has been requested to extend the runway another 1,000 feet. 8. A question was asked whether other greenbelts can be planned besides those 'indicated on the Plan. Mr. McGivern stated that the City can't zone a man's property and prohibit him from developing his land without giving trim the satisfaction of a public hearing for the determination of the highest and best use for his land. If the city wants to set aside open space by virtue of parks,etc., it will have to be purchased. Chairman.Stariley continued the public hearing on the General Plan,modif.ications untii the next meeting to be held on June 17, 1969. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further busines's to come before the Commis- sion, the meeting was adjourned. 'au 1 R. , tan` ev, �h Planning Commission Attest': GL/ William C. Mc -,ivern Director of P anninq -5-