HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/04/1978REGULAR: MEETING;.'.. .JANUARY 4•, 1978
-CITY COUNCIL ~CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M:-
CITY HALL: PETALUMA >, CALIFORNIA
The Planning, Commission encourages applicants •or their t
represenative _to. be
availaVle at_the. meetings to, answer questions,: so that no agenda.items, need
be_ ,deferred, - to: a later rdate r :due- ' to a -'lack of pe t-i information.
PUDGE ALLEGI'ANCE TO THE FLAG:
ROLL CALL.' Comm.. Balshaw - -• Head Horciza Lavin
rer
Shea ` Wa1te Wri ht
g
S.TAFRr Ronald Y. Hall, 'Planning* Director
APPROV OF' ,MINUTES
CORRE SP'ONDEN .
CONSENT', XAL;ENDAR
WALT ,WILLIAMS • & RAY AGVIRRE- 1. R
Request to modify tfie - �Tenfiative Subdivision. Map
MODIFICATION` TO CONDITION,- c
condition - for - X wok Manor -Subdivision. ,that `.re=
.•OF..TENTATIVE' SUBDIVISION'. q
quires a deed r restriction.ori Lots #79 thru' #95
MAP. AP..PRO,VAL•FOR MIWOK'MANOR'- p
preventing,•the 'constructi'on.of.permanent
" SUBDIVISION l - _(continued);: s
structures - •with-iA Iten "(10) 1ee't - of a PUE easement.
WALTER.`,KIECKHEFER -CO.: ' 2`.' E
E Q'. Evaluation and'Siite•'Design Review of a `
proposed bus' stop to, be located ,in the central
portion of •the• Golden Eagle - Shop;:ping Center
Parking 'Lot, 33' East.: -Washington : Street_
DOUGLAS MC `CABE 'MbI)IFICAT,IOIN -3w
Request m • to modif:} - condition°" of :Site Design Review
TO..A• SITE _DESIGN REVIEW , FORTY , ° a
approval- -.for- •'a - proposed = .off -ice' build -ing to be
725• ,E.. WASHINGTON 'STREET: • - l
located;•at••725 E Washington 'Street.
STA-NLEYiBARRASS FOR 'DAVID BABONIS:4.a: P
Public- •Hearng•to evaluat'e'-the. Environmental
('•BABONTS'r�GENERAL AUTO. - REP AIR) - -
-Impact Questionnaire for a General
E.',M. EVALUATION /..USE :PERMIT' A
Automotive •Repair Shop•• (sales; and service) to
REQUEST: b
be-locate d within. ;an, existing „ >13,SS00, • square
•1 b ' ld " ' ` 30'4 S tt St t
co ree .
Y. b,. Public Hearing to consider a-Use'P,ermit request
for the - proposed project.
PETALUMA :PLANNING`.COMMISSION
AGENDA
t {, JANUARY 'A , 19.7.8
SUNRISE_SU'BDTVISION
I,
Consider'ation.,of the Tentative Map for ,the -
TENTATIVE MAP /PUD
posed sub n divisio consisting. of 1,05 single:, ., ;.,,.
REZ ONING _REQUEST ,_::
family units ao be located on North 'Mc.Dowel'1 X
(continued).
near Dynamic: Street..
2':,
Public. Hearin to_,•consder': the_:r.ezonn
-9 g application
:
of Feature"Homes, Inc •.to rezone.- :app.roximately- r
. '
2 :8«acres 4 from R -ilr ;10,000 to ''PUD,..: ."
INDIAN CREEK PROPER ES TI
1'.
Public Ilearin "to •evaluate the Environmental;
g
(CHRISTENSEN &FOSTER)
_
Impact ; Questionnaire for a pro p q sed rezon .;
E, L.Q EVALUATION/
the '•• -proper ty located at :.Lakeville, Highway 'and
REZONING;'rROM M L .(LIGHT;..:
- 1 ... I
Petroleum Avenue -from M L (Light ndustrial). to
INDUSTRIAL..-T0: C - H "(HIGHWAY
C. H "(Highway Commercial)'.
COMMERCIAL) :
2...:
,
- Public :Hearing, to "consider an apph ca 'Ion to rezone
the: -above p;toper;ty w
;MARIN-- SONOMA :MOSQUITO ABATEMENT i " Pub °� to- evaluate tl e Ens ronmental "
.' ' DISTRI "CT:- E.I..•Q. EVALUATION/
Impact.Questonnaire for ^a proposed Corporation .
USE: "PERMIT/ SITE"DESIGN "`REVIEWt- ;-
' -•"
Facility•to be`aocated: at. 515 Nor.tfi Blvd.-
2.
Public Hearing c -o
to ns der n'a Use Perm ..t - request fair ,
^
the propo'be& project.'
Site Design - • review -- :consideration for "the project.
ROCKY SMITH-4
... t
l•.
Pub "1'ic Hearing" to'evaluate tare Ertronmental Impact,..
E.I.Q EVALUATION/ '
:.,
. -
Ques'Uonn_afre a` proposed:Tatob Shop to 'be
USE PERMIT REQUEST'
located^ at 5 "l b; Petaluma Blvd S:
}
u `
2,' .
Pub.lic .H.eAr ng- to consider, a PUse .'P,erm t request` .
., f proposed.ptoject,
ADJOURNMENT:— ,
r : MIN ' U T E S
PETALUMA ?LANN -ING C_ OMMIS;SION :r
JANUARY 4',1978-
,REGULAR.
7:30 P.M.
:'.CITY COUNCIL1 CITY HALL.,. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
PR .Si
NT `r x °Comm ,.Balshaw, ; HOrciza.,, `Lam,,. n, Shearer,, Waite:
ABSENT �.-;_. :- Comm.: •Head, !'Wright'
STAEF. Ronald,•F. Hall,, P-lanning,Director.
:i
LW 13:.1 . ;5 ✓: Cat'.
APPRO�AZ' OF MINUTES: The minutes, of the meeting of ;Dec'ember, 20.,.. 1977, were
approved as submitted
r
4 . r
CORRESPONDENC , rc;a.. ?t�, Coursee off!eredcaby Un- versity of California- February 3,.
`197481;; Hilton Inn;''Oakland'.,Airpoft,. regarding The -Gen-
� Plan.: BasYCE Requ rementis of 'the Law, State "Guidelines,, Consistency and
Adequacy,; and .a S Course for :Planning _Commiss, pners offered by U.C, Irvine,
on :3anuar�y 26 -27,. ;1'978;-
_ n
^ CONSiENTJCALENDAR The motion was made, by Comm: Shearer, seconded by Comm.
Lavinto approve Items 1,. 2, 3 and 4: Moti on was.
tYto- + ,� • carried unanimously.
c
'A'geri Item::•lx , Wal t Williams . &..Ray :Aguirre, (M wo'k; 'Manor Subdivision)
Res 44 approyirig' request to modify, the. Ten 'ative
! �:- , Subdvi$sion Ma` ..condition_ for Nliwok Manor Subdivision
a nn� s r,<' p
t'tia requires a deed restriction on Lots 179..th #9'5
prevent-ing the construction of permanent structures
` .f I i j3: , Within ten °-feet .o,f a: - PUE easement.
A enda.Item_2 Walter Kzeckhef;er Co,.., Negative Declaration and-Site
,,i�* i v Reg,-. 5.,513, :approving.aa` b is, stop 'to be located
--":c:.x t ; ; i -an 'the icentral portion.-.of =the: Golden Eagle Shopping "
k ► _�Cent6r`.Parking L6t.;. 3`3: -Eas,t Washington Street.
r bAgenda"Item'}3 :;� . s• Douglas °McCabe,, , appro.ving; request to.modify condition
of Si e Design Reviews• Res •5.502; for -an= office. bull-
_:'a;4tl;; { ing ,to -be .located "at. '725 :'East, Washington Stree
Agenda•'�Item "r4��A;.,jF Babonis .General Auto.:; Repair ,IiegatveD
,eclaration'and
! „f; kssr. { e r i ,',s Use:'Permt,.:Res ;l 2;4.4s`approviig a automotive
'a repair .sh to ; be� located 'within an-sexist ing -13,500 sq.
` 'si�'i �:? � a •,.: a X ft commercial build - ng:,:a`f 130'4,. S.co t Street.
°`SUNRISE= SUBDIUIS +ION' = a 'Mrs :`Hall :- expla•ned the request ..for .a.PUD- . rezoning' and
'
?i YTENTATIUE MQ /PUD Tentative. Map for Sunrise 'Subd` vision Phase Iby
REZONING REQUEST Feature Homes to subdivide a.•21 8%dcne portion of 'the
. ,(Continued)'; • .27 9 n acre - parcel located).on •No McDowell, near Dynamic .
Street, into 105 single - family lots: to include public
N
Petaluma City Planning - Commission Minutes, January.4, 1978
public streets and'. improvements. The` 4. square foot :lo=ts would consist of
conventional unit, placement with either pafired` wall ; :garages and zero, lot
line, actess, drive s.or individual zero- lot'line` `garage's with zero lot line
access .;drive. "The overall, Phase I gross density would, be•.4.82 unzas toy fhe
acre which, includes ,a 2.9 acre :open apace,. greenbelt area at 6he y orth&rn grid
, ..6f.- , tle,'property Access to the' subdivision would be'. :llorth.MdDowel?1 Blvd.
and Maria Drive once it is completed from Lucchesi ,.P ark., The internal circula-
:
ton would be via a partial, loop=ed local 'street conf_iguratiori : :with'three: cul =-'-
de -sacs feeding interior lots. The exi.`sting,.zoriing ,is R-'1- 10,;000 .and: 'is pro-
...
.. -
posed .for rezoning ,to PUD, Planned, Unit District, with , approval: -4f, thewtene -9.
time s=ubdivision map.
Comm. Shearer was concerned that hedges,' :and junipers: would_, ,creat a _sight
distance problem and,. ;prefer :red a.tr-ee concept for- better visibility along with
low; ground` cover. C.1. Al
Le:tte''r from .the,' °City Attorney 'was read relative_ to condition It of - the :Tenter - - :
_. .,_
, ..
t, ve Map which. pertains, to dedication of land for Pl as;e I. Mr. Klo.se proposed
that park ,;and °greenbelt development should `be planned for both -P - 96d h `.Mid•;ilkh,
and 'the' . concept of d'ed- catin' both. Phase I -and 'Il.Oarklands should; be. considered
..,
with the developer. with credit for Phase given tov.th devehoper. : :.
M, Patricia Hill_ goss exp'lai'ned that the. Recreation Comm s'sioi -had, e'nvis oned'
this . a s' O space area.' , .Comm. Bal`shaw 'asked if the. of f- site drainage 'i mpro e-
ments to p.ro.vide. for adequate downstream drainage is to the satisfaction of the
Sonoma County_ Wa €er ,Agency..: -'This open end•, condttion`�should not,�be � nclud'id `as
;
a condition:, ,It '.is. up to the Sonoma County 'Water < Agency to make a 'decisi=on
before.action.is taken. Jon Anderson stated. that normally ;the City contracts
with, t Sonoma County W2t'er.,Agency for itheir advisory services ; however, it - is`
the .City's ; prerogative to , 'modify the 1- conditi=on. , Comiii. ,Lavin stated'-.that =4, the
condi;ti of the - ,PUD ..rezonin& contradict the conditions oft the `Tentative, Map.:
Comm.; Wzift& ,explained' that; the- - condition's of „the 'PUD "override .the : conditions :, -6f;'
the Tent at v"e,'Map.
:
Comm. - Shearer asked the °type .of fmatet'ial- proposed'•-for the sol d' 'fence. Mr.
Hall explained this would be 'a wooden fence, not ,a :masonry fence'.,
;
Doug Weeks, - `:Feature Homes; explained'- that when the :allotment 'for. 105 homes: :was
transferred : to Feature ;Homes,, 'ittwas the o; ntent_ to'° retain the low= to moderate- --
irtcome 'housing. The' bas c� concepts in the;'designywere. retained ; 'The setbacks: .
vary, with ',a staggered effect to.break.up the monotony.. Jon. MacKay.
and S.oinps,. ; stat:ed.that- Sunrise Parkway is : a•..coa= lector 'st_reet:,and.rttherehwould be
•sid'ewalks::'on;, both'sid "es o'f the street,., •'Comm: Balshaw questioned the need :for
sidewalks .o i both- . §ide 's of; :.the..st tee t;, since no homes would , be' constructed' on
one side :of" the: street. He, requested that no "sighs' be nstalled. if the; poten- -
y paths in place oaf a sidewalk. Thomas Hargs,;.,Asss,tant
tial .:is for,).bic. ;6x16.
City Engineer; stated- ,there. would be; a need_ for•.. some :signing.,` Comm. Balshaw•
objected to the post ng,o`f,• °so'many`s gns :in the:. City: He felt there was a need-
:
to controls the posting; ofzvario.us' =street ;signs" :::proposed' :by the Engineering
'Department and any sign re¢ommer . dation� should be referred to the Planning
. _ _
:. ..: - - __ __ ..
Commission. Bicycle path, area& should be :kept as clear, as possible. It is -,
prime' concern_ of the Planning;'Commissidh, to. ascertain, the- visual;_ aspects' "of•ithe "
111
: "
City , ",mr .. ,Hargis names signs;; twos stop signs'�and perhaps two'.
F stated.'thatr•street
30 •MPH' signs :are warranted'-for :the • subdivision; Bicycle ,'signs..: - e• generally;°
posted: for tti'e Motorists rather. :align he eycIistw.,
Petaluma City Planning- Commi's'sion Mniit'es, January'4`,' 978'
The Publ'c',Hearing was opened to consider the pro ed PUD Rezon -ng Mrs /
Thomasy; `'andlewbbd&' rk' jasked if °'''these homes would have City water and 'sewer.
Comm. Waite eXplaiied that City 'wa° °ter' and sewer would' be` available. The Pubic
Hearing ;was closed.
Mr', Weeks said there was a `comp'le`t'e lai dsc`Ape `d ^esign aplan for the "projec
From ai'• procedural 'standpoint;' Comm Lavin c'omment'ed lendsca plans 'are. as-
,..
signed ;to the allotment' °board•,`' '•He asked •if `the''d"evelopment wa's' considered for
PUD when. :evaluated by the' allotment' system ?' : Mr..,Ha1.1 acknowledged that the .
_
sibd vis on was cons%dered SV' .'PUD rezoning:
Comm Shearer moved toreyommend approval , o -f phe jreque`sted PUD 'r:ezoning, and
Tentative' Ma ,:., ,;to the : C•it Council with the .s ecifL f_indin s with the follow-
ing cha °riges., The.motion. was seconded _ b.y - Comm•. Hotciza,
PU REZON,'ING .MAC'
Condition wl -' reworded The Tbllowin +min'xmum
g. setbacks will be 'r- . equired for.
thee.res dent al main 'building "s of - he;thr;ee 'prop.osed r.esideritial building''
models . €< f:
^
l) 25 1 I f'oot 'minimum front yard: setback.,,:
2) 5 foot 'minimum side°.-yard': setback "fo'r - the
a ea .
f:oo't minimum aggregate side yard setb
main;: residential build -ings livalbe
ck for,'the m aYn residential build
_ i..ngs (livable area.) ,
4 ^), ,20 foot minimum rear yar se'tback.' '
Condition 2 - reworded - Indivi.dual dr'vewa_y�s -are to be 16 feet wide•, and
y i rfa °ce exeep't for a°
common drivewa s a`re to be 24` feet wide with
area �acent to 'the sidewalk'
maximum 4 foot by 10 food wide planting rose`. g
line . to: facilitate 'the planting o a. common resideitiaT tree °,.on the
. ,.
propertyy.' line in^ `such, `locations.
Condition 6 -- -changed. - dication of h e entire !'openr space. ar'ea:•shall be' a
condition of the Tentat,Ye Ma p Random planting, of trees along the perimeter
of :Sunrise P.azkway shall be, provided within' + the open-'spac'e• a
are,
i
Condit on 7
added The requirements of th'e Chief Fire
`Building Inspector,
Marshal Pol °ice Department, Public Works Department, Pacif -c as Elec °trio"
Company .=and °Pacif •c ,•Tef'ephone as' ,stated ins'the staff'. report shall ,be 'adhered
to by` the subdivde•r project development,
'Ji
TENTATIVE 'MAP°
'Condition„ 4 -• revised All s;ingl'e` family lots which back on •NOYth 11
shall be provided with a uniform '6 -foot solid fence along the, property line,
and`. tkie 'single family lots' adjaceni to: Candlewood.'Mob `le ',Home -Park shall -have. a
uniform 6 foot sol "id fence ralong its' property line Both near yard fencing '
requirements shall 'be subject{to the r,equirement`s'. of 'the City 'Zoning and Subdi
vis =ion �Jrdinances and-,to th(eosatisfact on of" the `Planning Di
- 3-
Petaluma City Planning ;:Commiss on.Minutes, -January 4,;', 19.7$.
Condition 6 ,.- changed = Dedication of ' "entire open:- •space area shall. - b;e a
condir,tion of, the Tentative ;Map Random planting ;trees, along„ the perimeter
of 'Sunr'ise Parkway, shall . be provided within`. the: open., space, area
l.
Condition 14 - - added - The. requirements. of',the ;Chief- Building Inspector, Fire
Marshal. :Police D'epartment.;, ,P'ublic. 'Works. Department - Paeifac Ga's & Elec,tric .
Company, , and' .Pacific. Telephone as, stated in= the staff- report •shaIl,.`be- adhered
to> by the. subdivider . throughout . p deivelb,pment;. '.
Condition 15 _ . added The •appli`cant shall satisfy" the Sonoma'. County Water. ,.
Agency requirements with concurrehce concurrence,-oft. those r•,ecommend °ations by the Cit
AYES 5 NOES; ' 0 ABSENT,, .`2
INDIAN CREEK ,PROPER- Mr. Hall explained an application had been :received
_. _
TIES` (;CHRI_STENSEM & - from. Christensen & Fos•te•r,, representing• 'tYie� Indian_
FQSTER),- &..I.'Q:: Creek ,property,, to 'rez,one 5. acres aoca,ted, -at' the
EVAL`UAT:IONj,.REZON -ING • southerly:' corner of: Lakeville. Highway, .and. Petroleum: V
FROM M -1. (L'IA'GHT Avenue - from. M=L, Light- I- dus.tr-ialr. to •IC -% Highway., . -
INDUSTRIAL, TO,C -H Commercial. Thet Commission had, approved: an,ar:chi=
(HIGIMY COMMERCIAL) : tectur,al: and '!s ; te, design• .review: on November l - 19
for an industrial /heavy,' commercial compil.ex.. The-
#
applicant indicated,ahat. some of;, the uses' ,of-' the comp'I'ex be:,uses peer-
,mitt 'd, in a FC H 'h =ighway commercial zon•irm 'd'istr ct;, but 'not permitted in
light z industrial zoning dis;trict;.. Therefore, .th'e applicant wasaduised to,
submit .an ap,p.licaition_- to rezone, the, property to• C H,, hlg"ay commercial., ; -
•
b
Mr.. Hall ,stated: that. letters; had: be'en.'rece ved. from W.,' R. Hil- Rigoss„ .Western'
Motors, and, Don •.P.`aige,; Western Mobile. Sales: in, opposition,: to th . rezoning
applica'tlo,n.`
Comm Horc z'a asked if• there:was:,a- .tend'ency to 'rezone. property on, - Lakeville"
Highway 'from commercial to_ ind•us!tral.. Mr Hall: expl'aine'd there is' a def nte-
'4mixt,ur:e ' of.',commercial�: versus.' industrial{ uses • ' ind ca < te,d there 'was no, C -H; :
,zoning past Petroleum Avenue.. Comm. Lavin • recalled! .that iri . Novembe.r this: pro-
p:erty-was zoned. M -L `and the, applicant wars• aware at, that; time that some of the.
'uses, might r,equir , a zoning 'chan_ge.: . , •s .
The Public Hearing, to: ;consider the Environmental Imp °act'. Questonnaire was ,•'-
opened. Matt xudson,..attbmey rep•res'entf4g. W,'. R. Hilligo stated: that the
orie p,r me.. i .;the -traffic on L'akev Mlle ,Highway -. , When the Hill- igoss!'s -
develop their property, they ;were; required; by :CALTRANS toy ded cate *a portion•:
0 : their •property., Mr. Hudson OXplalned that- .policies related,,-to«,commerc:ial;;
and - industrial development -in the.. EDP- states kt,. is ttie Cit.y,'s policy that ,
neighborhood' and communifty commercial• '0s -lets b e carefully r- ela -ted. toi resi - - -•
dential :service. -an as..in ••timing., size aria - location; and, that thoroughfare
commercial. zoning- be severely limited -.. The question arises then.on. whether - we
_
heed 'mo,re commercial, areas;. -;' -•This -area is general
Edward %Fos;ter.;;• member-of the - Indian, Creek. P: "roperties,.expla ried ,the proj had.
v arious uses: dealing with automotive,, boat- repair ands, warehousing This, .type
v f complex,has become quite °successful as It provides stop for',automo:bile
owners; as well. as ;boat, pwnersf. It: would be an asset t. to 'bo_at..owners if facili-
ties are provided, near- the.':boating,:.fac li't= es° on Petroleum Avenue, Mr.. Foster
- -4.-
r
'a
Petaluma City Planning :Commission Minu.tes;;^ ,.January;,,. - 19'7;8;
stated CALTRANS requested that,access•:be provided further_ back on ; Petroleum
Avenue. There w'il'l "be. landscaping,,between ,Lakeville Highway and the .on -site
this would be setback, buildings. There is a need fo_r.ths,type bus'n_e "ss and
area and at .t he
an ideal , lo k catlon Mr Hudson stated, a study. has been -
presented to the City,o.n „whether this is a. valid: zoning. change. Mr: +Fo_'st'er•:
stated this. was' correct that thdCity staff has no,t indicated there is a need
fora market survey s;
'Comm. Horciza moved to direct the .Planni.ng Dire •to- prepare_ and post- a
iQetve Declaration for the prof' "ect, T
ga he motign , was::.seconded.by Comm. Shearer.
�.... AYES .5 NOES ;O ABSEN.T:,,2-
The Public Hearing was o Oned to consider the pro "posed C- HI,,,Highway.Commercial,
rezoning.
Mr, Hudson stated, ,,that. 'the proposed - rezoning does not conform to the General
Plan arid,, the, .Environmental„ Design P.lan,. :. Thin is- a general Andustrial area.
None of);the :uses - .are Industrial.., they' are . all retail • Since , th'e: ,zoning, .does
not conform .to the:. EDP or the General Plan - t,. cannot.. be .agpxoved ,by- the Plan-
ning .Commission,,or: City ,Council.. ,W:e -do,.-not need', mor.e' . commercial zones:; but, -
industrial zones for, better tax: "bas.es: ; CALTRANS..:comments_ were related. -to-..a
project in an M L District_- ;Documn
ets from RAN
ALTS A d not, indicate .what they
•want to do,,nor, they make:, a final decision on what =the:';dedi cat-ion -would
and ,on .,how the. traffic would•=- flow.. You• are 'trying, .to: fit - a proj'ec.t,.'into .a;. zone.
that wi11 not take it_ ;This,, ._change would encompass all Ythe _.d'es.res the ;ap:pli-
-.
co t. wants:
Comm . Horciza ,stated that the uses applied .f:or -could � "come •:und'er a PUD• r:ezonin "g.
Mr,. Foster stated ,the. us:e of the property ; should encourage ?'sgme :type
of ° F deveaopment .' along Petroleum Avenue,. They „would not,object to .a °.PUD rezoning
and • ,their request, would .be the ,same'a's pres'ented;.:. M. Patricia HI-1 1 goss,
opposed,, the,xezon ng, stated this is a, ;policy hang
ce - and, the EDP a
,i,should- :tand
as ac'c,epted by, the Planning :Commission' and City Council.. The.P.ublic•'Hearing
was, 'closed. i
, Comm. Ba stated that' C-H is designed to serve 'the travelling public. An
M =L District would not allow .the•-business es that, are ,proposed; There., :is -,no'
indication they will, serve-the travelling public': are d'
in de;termina-
,
tion -on where.. the aM h',zone` stops;.,.. •Comm, Horciza•: stated -,that Lak�e,villd w It h' its
existing traffic can stand only ,so .iniich, development. He would- `like, to see
sales and services located along Petaluma •B:lud. South rather than out of the
Ci;ty... rComm.. 'Shearer stated. this is ,a: small • ;p'grcelof' land „sand •,the :.comp.lex ;
would-.service boat's and, cars,. ; and,:would:�ke'ep ; away. from the.d'owntown I.
area. Comm, .- Balshaw asked if ,the uses. =would fit,
into a• M -L. zone.:; ' Mr. Hall
...
stated 'the re,,,isW .the question of %the ahlowancef-of satelite uses . is not
certain that all „uses, propossed_ would.,b'e, allowed,..
'Comm.,,Horciza „moved to - recommend denial of t:he requested C =H, Highway Commer,-
cial, • re' zoning -to' °the City `Council ”' Tbi 'mot' ion' was ” se`conded `by 'Comm.'' Balsliaw.
AYES - 4 NOES 1. - ABSENT. 2
Mr,i Foster asked if the;�Comm ssi.on' would consider a PUD 're'zoning Mr. Hall
explained the should make app`lic'ation for 'a -P . D : rezoining and specify
,all uses`.
-.5=
G'
Petaluma, City P'lann ng Commission - Minutes January "4,. 1978'
MARIN- SONOMA•'MOSQUITO expla e
Mr. Hall ind' -the request,b.y the, Marin- Sonoma
ABATEMENT `DISTRICT Mosquito Abat'emerit, District :f.or a. coxporaton yard 'and
-, _ '
K-I -.'Q.' EVALUATION /USE ¢ 'development., to be 'loca:ted 'at 515 ":North 'McDowell Blvd.
PERMIT' / SITE`'DESIGN. - '" The propose'd''developmeht would , ix clude an. office build-
REVIEW'_,
ing,,•shop and garage with.covered bay; fish raising
p pond., parking lot "and ,small - accessory' srt- ruetures The
Parcel contains
.1•.15 acres. The roof overhang and: - one arehitec °aural; feature of
the Ofifice• building extend into the. xreq.uired front and side yard ,setbacks. In
addit on,, a gas:- pump%to •-be .3ocated on the left side "of .,the site is too close to
the. property -line. The proposed' developmen't,°nfrnges on :the area` designated
by the -City for the •f`ut'ure extension of Rainier Avenue: In order to provide
for'the p`lanned'•extension'of Rainier Avenue to the•Freeway ay.app.roximate 43-
foot, side. strip' of land bordering the south side of-the pro,p:erty will need to
-Ve acquire'd 'by the City;
.Mr.. Hall stated the staff. "had met , w'i'th the District Board to redesign the
project to provide for the extension :of` Rainier Averiiie,. Comm: B q;ues "-
toned the need for an 86 - foot, wide right =of - way, if' only
onto'f"f' • ramps' 'are
p;laiiried: The app'l'icant wants "a "dec_is :ion 'tonight that commits the to -
Rainier Avenue± • 9 pr -ovis on irs for, the of Rainier ' Avenuee so
that •no str.ubture 'will be '•p'erm �tted` in this area. CAL TR"S 'in'dicat;e's .we are
talking. about 1'..� to, -2� million d`o'llars for' a freeway overcross ng. need an
east /west crossing; is' this` that connection ?° : He bisualzed the City buying
•' into' .someth- ng before ;they 'had a; `chalice: °to' • s'tudy "it.. Rainier 'extension is
.being `planned, as, a major east, /west crossing .d "e gite 'the :'fact - the• Planning
Gommssio "'and rCty Council, Have no:t designated, .tha4tl specific 'area for
connection: Someone is pulling. strings. An:86' -foot wide:'s;treet, is` an'absolute.
waste; why do we 86 feet for a 60=foot'.road? Mr. Hargis explained that
'Rainier Avenue is; set''up as a four= lane with -•An 86 -foot right' - - way. '
Comm. ' =Balshaw asked when -it bias determined that'a 4,3='foot,'dedication w'o`uld be
require for Rainier ;Avenue Th0- City staf" des" geed th'e. proj :ect• ~ an. 86- 'foot
wide overcros`siii;g ;when 'it , was the Commissions responsibi1_- ty to
determine .wha't and where. the specific project should be °Mr;. Hargis st'at'ed the
staff would' -make ;a recommendation toi "the •;Commission and that the specific
project would go through the planning process -; including° the possible for
an environmental 'impact .report;.
Comm;''Balshaw stated;: - all: that' i's necessary. is� •keep the, area`. Ilea, "r for•: the
City '. tak , e condemnat "ion act 6n. in • the futdte!. Comm. Shearer' 'stated=. the . ap 1.
'p'1icai t• has'- lfel:d this property- for ;several years .` 'They want.- a commitmdnt °`from,
the City on - how they can develop their 'pr6perty.`
Mr. Ha`l`l s'tat`ed' °the . City -do es - not' . hdVe' a specific ':design for- ;the :gr' of ect, but
would"' like; to' be - real- 't ..,'an
d� make' -allow'anc`e fo,'r -•an - ultimate •'43 - foot right-
'of =way. • ' Comm': • `Bal'shaw •stated' this -is ' a design that `will commit 'the City to
purchase. th s =land. Don t-you think -the City s;taff eould, approve- east' west
.connection°? This ' ' being'• accepted without.-an . E-. T ,R.
The ,Public; ;Hearing tq consider. the. •;Enyi.ronmental., Impact 'Questionnaire was•
opened.
ri
Dick Lieb,.Lieb & Quaresma, stated the applicant needs some direction from the.
City. The : pr <oject will' not. be.b +mmediately,,but a decision is: needed on
the' -foot right -of =way~. This would effect the`site- glans.if the right -of -.way
is taken..
-6 .
u -;
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes,-,.January, 4 10"7$
Allan, Telf o.rd g 4g6k HarSonom Moq ito-Abat&ment rIpist,ri . 6t stated the
boar&need�s s methin rom a the that.they can look at", they can
make. a decision., Mri. Ajall, stated 'the - City tann6t_ further c:ommkt-1tself at this
.,.,
time. 'The. City. will work- �jith District the �Dfr-
ict to .cede PT 0 T It would.
involve a trade ,of land.. - The City would, have--gto purcha§e:: land-to give to the
District in trade for- the right-of-way takerfi - The� Public Hearing was closed.
'Comm.. 'Ho rciz stated we -a_r of R ainie r:�Avefttie which.
-
s not; really concern the: appli cant i' ; they can rearrange:thei.r project.
Comm. ..Horciza moved to :direct the Planning;:; Direptot to prepare and post a
Negative Declaratioii fox project. The motion was seconded by Comm. Shearer.
AYES, - 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2
Comm'. JB there,',isrfo way the,. City can justify taking land unless an
exchari'ge, of land is :made., The City would. have to,pur.qhase: land. f rom a private
*7
holder,: Comm. Waite ,asked who knows when :and if this - w I 11 . take, place. . Comm.
'Balshaw stated we were -told to approve one-way on.. and - off' ramp , but how does
that justify four lanes. Comm Layin stated we are talking about an -increment
of I 16 If there. is going 'to be a 'street . there, some: portion of the appli"
cant s ,Jand has to be taken- and is. it not good insurance,. to. take an additional
16, f e e t. . It might be cheaper. to buy the 16 feet than to 'condemn • their' p rop er-ty'
a t a laterm time. The Public `Hearing was clp.s`e&.
'Comm. Horciia: moved to_, grant ,' the. Use Permit ,to allow for a coporation fa'c
The motion w1a.s. seconded by Comm Shearer!.
AYES' 5 NOES" 0. ~• ABSENT, 2:
;Comm., Shearer moved - to , dpprove_ the site desi-g4. f or the - proposed:.project with
conditions of - approval as - recomm6nd'ed. by st-A17f and' u io d i , fle.d. by, .'tlfe Architec-
total - , And Site Design Review Committee with the -The motion
was seconded by Comm. Baishaw-
AYE5 4 NOES 1 ABSENT 2
Condition. 3, - reworded to read - Gasb1_1he..pqmps -bball.be -s'et back at `least. _ten
'(10) feet f rom alli property lines and shall . be 'prote
cted. from vehicles by ap-
pT-opriate" barriers'. Both the "'acce'ssoxy gas pump sheltej:" and the '''accessory
truck-, was eqVipmeh st-ruc t tire" shall be screened-with-landscaping f rom the
vision, -motorists the existing and planned street system.
Condition 6 reworded to read The three (1).. existing, Montere" Cypress trees
y
located, in . - the right side yard shall be permanently - preserved in good_ growing
-
condition, The r of , any other. trees on-the site shall, be subject tq
approval, by the. Planning Director. The strip of ope space -located in f:,pnt of
the site .shall. be fully improved with' ' landscaping and irrigation f acilities
consistent:with the remainder Of the site.. All trees shall,.be',a minimum
fi fteen ; (15,): 9 allons in size and all shrubs shall . b& at 'least.'- f Eve (5) gallons.
'Plans ih1d_1,d,a,tihg all xequire`d _lan_'ds7cape mo'd and an automatic irriga-
tion. hall be submitted to the. Plannihg,'Director for review approval
AD- prior to the a building, permit.
Condition 7 'Deleted.,
-7-
VN
V�l