HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/04/1978REGULAR: MEETING:, •.
: s . • ''JANUARY 4 , 1978
-CITY COUNCIL'CHAMBERS,
7:30 P.M:
CITY ,HALL
-PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
The Planning, Commission encourages •applicants
•or their, represein.ta-tine; to. be
ayailaVle_A.the,meetings to; answer,
quest ons,,so that. no agenda.it;ems need
be deferred; to, a later;rdater,due to
a lack of pertinent information.
,LEDGE:ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL: Comm.. Balshaw-, Head-:„ .. Horciza-: Lavin
Shearer- . Wat'e
Wrigfit„ ..-
STAFF; Ronald Y. Hall, 'Planning-
Director
ARBROVAL OF" ,MINUTES,:
CORR_ESP'ONDEN:CE:''
...CONSENT'X.ALENDAR:
WANT WILLIAMS • & •RAY AGUIRRE- • - :, 1.
Request • to: modify the t1entative-Subdivision Map
'MOD TO �dONDTTIQN,
condition for'Miwok Manor":Subdivision, .that .re=
_I-FICATIW
....:OF -.TEN.TATIVE'. SUBDIVISION �.
quires; a deed . restriction .;ori Lots #79 thru #95
MAP.AP.PRO,VAL, FQR 'MIWQK 'MANOR•-
preventing `ttie 'constructi'on -of . permanent
SUBDIVISION:. :'(?continued).
structures •w thin'ten "(10-,f -feet -of a� PUE easement.
WALTER-.-,`KIECKHEFER _CO. 2`.'
E..'I'.•Q'. Evaluation and`Site,Design Review -.of' a
proposed bus'stop to,be""Igeated in the central
portion of, •the• Golden -Eagle 'Shopping Center
Parking L_ot, 33 East. -Washington :Street_
DOUGLAS, -MC 1CAGE4MODIFICAT1IM 3
Request ,to .modify'-c:ond t'ion_• of ,Site Design Review
TO,.A• SITE'_DES.IGN; REVIEW�,FOR• - •
approval -:for- ••a•proposed �office'build-ing to be
725•,E, WASHINGTON �STREETr- -
locatedw-at-725„E; Washington Street.
-STANLEY� BARRAS'S •`F6k,� DAVID� BABONIS: 4.a.
Public -•Hearing• to evaluate'•the. Environmental
(BABONISr.GENERAL AUTO -REPAIR) -.
-Impact Questionnaire for_.a;-proposed General
EVAtUAT-ION/..USE, :PERMIT'
Automotive •Repair Shop•• (sales, and service) to
REQUEST:
be located within. an, exist ing,,a13,,500,•square
•foot: commer-cial--building,`at',4304 Scott, 'Street.
Y.
b_ Public. Hearing'to consider a-Use'Permit request
for the .proposed projett.
PETALUMA: PLANNING'. COMMISSION
F. • s+µ•
AGENDA
k " - { ,7ANUARY ' 4 ; 19 78
SUNRISE: SU'BDIV•ISION�- _
1,
Consi&or,ati6n-.'of theilen'tative:•Map `for;;the-
TENTATIVE .MAP/.PUD
posed,subdivision_,conssting<- of ;105 single,• X
REZONING :REQUEST:._
family uni-ts, .to be 'locatedr.'on *North 'McDowel'1
(continued).
near- Dynamic Street.. r
Z.
Public' Hearing--.to_,consider: the -rezoning 'iri a licat on, -
' a.....
.'
•
of Feature - Homes,; Inc :,'•to, rezone.'-:app.roxiinately =` "' %`'
2'8«acres from R-1--10,000 to PUD,..:
INDIAN CREEK PROP.ERTTES `"' ' '
1'.
Public ,-Hearing"-'t+o evaauat'e: aYie .`,Environmental;;
'OT
,nge foa.proedrzo�RSTENSEN
Que'stiorinairps(G
.E-.'I..Q.". EVALUATION'
the'' -property 'located":~at. Laken -l"le. Hi"ghway and
REZON'ING;'FROM M-=L .(L-IGHT;..
+Industrial_) . to -
INDUSTRIAL...TO, C�H '(HTGHWAY
C'=H (Highway Commercial)':` '
COMMERCIAL):
2„
,;:p_ublid°Hearing to -cons der', an app-1 caEion'-ta rezone
`the<-abovii p'roper,ty:
;MARINrSONOMA::MOSQUITO. ABATEMENT_:l':,"'
`Public.>'Hear pg� t' evaluate�'the�Eriu�roninental
' DISTRICT:=E: L.'Q:: EVALUATION/
Impact. Que'stionnaire --- for ^a::.proposed`j;Co.rporat ion'
-'-USE--PERMIT/SITE-"DESIGN REVIEW:--;
'-
•Facility - to be, located,at. 515: Nor.th.McDowe.11 Blvd.'
2.
Public Hearing -to consider n'a Use,_Perm t:-request:.:.ftir
.
the: propo'sedz°projecC,..
_.. ,.....-
3.
•
Site 'DesigEr Review=a:consideat:on; for the project.
ROCKY SMITH-= ' : ;'
1-.
Public.Hear- nga 't'o-eva'luate--t'he 'Erin ronment'al Impact ;;
E.I.Q.-EVALUATION:/> s
:;,..
Questionnaa re for' a` propose3 -Tatoo Shop to be ;
USE PERMIT' `REQUEST"located,
at.-'5"16, :Petaluma Blvd S'.
= ,.,
..'•Public, _Hearing -..to consider, a°'Use .'Permit requests`
for: _the .proposed.,pr.oject.
ADJOURNMENT :
PETALUMA PLANN-ING COMMIS'_SIION V.. JANUARY 4', 1973
,REGULAR ;MEETING 7. ' 30 P.M.
C�TY'`CpUNCILiCHAMBERS,;,CITY, HALL PETALUMA,CALIFORNIA
RRE.SEN:T:;°r °Comm.;,.Balshaw;,:,,Horcza', la In, Shearer_,,, Waite
:,ABS,ENT: .�.- :,CommHead, '"Wright
-STAFF`: Rona_ld,• F. Hall, Planning Director .
.:APPRO�AZ' OF�MINUTES:, The minutes, o'f the meeting of :December, 20.,. 1977, were
Approved :as'submi-tted:.
- - •LG .•. %J ti. C{xT...t 'y.i � r "..•R �7. . L' f,Y �: c.�l�'•, _ ''.-' ,. ,
CORRESPONDENCE: ?.x�;-!.. �.c� Course offered,aby_..Unversty of Cali-fornia;" February 3,.
, .ff?�i .•"�..i ?�, ,. Hilton Inn`;''Oakland,.;Airp.or.t,. regarding The -Gen-
•eral` Plan.:.-;Bas'Yc Requ rementis-of the Law., State Guidelines,, Consistency and
Ade,giaey� and . a S,ho,rt Course for Planning _Commss;o"Hers offered by U.C, Irvine,
oaniia'Lr".�y 26-27';,';19.78:.
:t;CQNSENT=.iCALENDAR ,. ;" <T,he,�,motion .was made, by Comm: Shearer, seconded by Comm.
tW a:�:J �. , • ~ ' Lavin;to "approve, Items l,. 2.,3 and 4. Motion was.
• aY�i�a�..,� •carried unanimously.
• A'gernda: Item ;1 Walt Williams &, Ray, Aguirre, (Miwo'k Manor Subdivision).
Res,.'44-77, approving'request to modify the. Tentative
A i�z �- .,fin<'. .;: - : t:•�;-: Subdivision Map. cd- di.tion_ for 1N1iwok Manor Subdivision"
that requires a, deed rest .1dti'on on Lots 179..thru #95
1 preventing the, construction, of permanent structures
-'; ' ' ? i ja • wifhin.,teh "feet .of a: 'PUE easement.
Agenda:•,.Item_2 -{_Walter Kzeckhef:er Co:..,, Negative Declaration and -Site
-r ka2 _ ,i�*,-i! c,A.Desigri Res.'.' 5 .,513; :approv;irig..a' b,us , stop 'to be located
yin' ''the. icentral portion .qf='the: Golden Eagle Shopping "
tk .0 < _�Center`.Par:king Lot.;_ 33: Easi 'Was hing'ton Street.
rl•s •hAgerida Ittem')3p,_ :._ :>s• bougl•as: �,M Cabe,, •appro.v_ •ng, req;ues_ t to'.modify condition
of",Site Design Review,;-'Res..:'5.502; for an=.offic.e. build-
%. ._. a•;4tI {_ �. • in_g:.,,to:"be-.lo.cated''at. '725:'East. Washington Street.
Agenda•''Item';4 ��: A.. riF.'.,",:,B�abonis .General Auto:;Repalr;;�Negative,Declaration and
l„ ftaiksr .: C -:) . <<ar. sz:.; UsePermit_ Res,. _�l-i 2.44s.;approv ng a ,general . automotive
repa r-.s . to ;be located: w th nA..an- existing 13',500 sq.
X ft, commercial_ build ng,,.;dt. 1304. Scott Street.
ts.t
`SUNRISE-- SURD IUIS+ION= �4;" Mrs,. : -Hall._ expla• ned'* Ihe`.: request .'for .a . PUD. rezoning and
ti YTENTAT,IUE MAP%PUD..;' Tentative .Map: for. Sunrise~ Subdiivison Phase -I by
REZONING REQUEST:. -Fea:ture • Home's: to -,subdivide a = 21.8 acne portion of the
. , ... .
•.. r
--..(;Continued);, 27,9m�acre -parcel l,ocat'edj.on `Nor,t'h McDowell, near. Dynamic
S"tre.et,-into 105 single-family Tots. to include public
Petaluma City 'Planning -Commission Minute's, January.4,' 1978
public streets andAimprovements. The;4,5601square foot lats would consist of'
t ited, common. wall conventional unit. 'placement with either 0 t
P4 ..gArages' and lo
line Adtess drives or individual zero. ld:t'lln6`gar . ages,with zero lot line
4.82 access "The overall Phase I gross -density would. :jdfi fe,s - t6�,'fhe
acre
__ .1 .- -, h"
acre. which, incliadebr a 2.9 ' 5-acre :open space,. greenb,elt area at 6he_�fiort ern end
&U.'the.'property. Access to the"'.subdivIsion would from".1lorth.'McDowelil� Blvd.
-and Maria Drive once it is completed from Lucchesi Park:, The internal circula-
tion would be via `a- Partial, looped local 'street configtiritidli..,wi,th,three: ciil-!Z
de -sacs feeding interior lots. The -ekist-ing,.zoding ,is R;4-10,,,000 and is pro. -
posed for rezoning to'.PUD, Planned, 'Unit -District ,' with,,approval:--4f the w6eh`ieg-4_
tive subdivision map.
Comm. Shearer was concerned that hedges '.and junipers:e ,voix1d,,cr Ate -a sight____.
distance problem and,.,p,ref erred a treer concept for- bettervisibilityalong with
low grodnd' cover. FdT .7
,Lett6k from the,'CitY Attorney 'was as tread''relative 'to condition 'It 6 df.tbejenta.
tive Map - which. -pertains, to, dedication of land for Phase I., .14jr. KlOse proposed
tha,t•. park and -Vee-dbelt deve-loptient should be planned for both fdiid.;4ilk,
and 'the'. concept of dedicating-- both - Phase I •and..."II.60irkland,s should 'be. considered
with the developer,. withcredit, for Phase-11' given tp-.ith,e, dt§ve1`6p-&r. 1.41
M. Patricia Hill-igoq*s explained that the Recreation Comifiigsiiron-ha& e'nviisl6ned-
t his, open . space area.' Comm. Balshaw asked, if the off --site •,drainage, kmprove_
ments4 to provide fo-i adequate downstream drainage is to, the satisfaction of the
Sonoma County Wati-e.rAgency. ;,-This open end', cond1tion-sho'uld not-, 1bd 1fidltf(1'dd:,',-ds
a condition. ,It is up to the -Sonoma County -Water �Agd.pty to make A -decisidn
be f o re. ac't ion is taken. Jon Anderson -stdted I : that normally
1y , ;the . City contracts
with the Sonoma C unty Wat6r.,Agdncy for their advisory!servites.; h9wever, it is
the Ci,ty,.,s ,prerogative to."modify the - condition_ . C6mbi. Lavin statea:.thdt,,, the
. conditio&s.of 'the-',PUD,.,rezonin& ton . tra . dict -the� d6nditions,of the 'Tentative Map,.
Comm'...- Waite ,explained that the -condition's of�!the-'PUD.override .,the conditidns,,bf;'
the Tentative Map.
Comm. 'Shearer Asked the.type of:tmaterial - proposed'• for the solid ''fence. Mr.
Hall 'explained' this would be 'a wooden fenee, not •a masoqry. fe'nde'-.
Doug W6eks,-.Feat.uke Homes., e.,Xplilneid- that when. the allotment for: 105 homes...was4
transferred to, Feature 'Hbmes,, 'ittwa& the", 111ntent,:to" retain the low= to -moderate-,
irtcomehousing. The" basic,; concepts in the,:'4desig_tow6r-iEiI ret6ined.,The setbacks::
vary, with ',a staggered to. break up the indhotony;... Jon Anderson, MacKay.
and ParkwAy, is,, a,:,.co1l&ctor streetl,,atid..-,thereLwoti-ld be,
..sidewalks bath's,ide§ 6'f the street,., Comni. Bal.6hAw questioned the -need :for
sidewalks oft 'both, §ide's, 'df,.-'.1the"streets;, since - no'.'homes would be, constructed 'qn
one side :of' the: street. He. requested that, no.,sigiis - be.. installed. if 'thepoten-
tial is fo,r�.b cycle. paths; in:.p1dte---6f,& sidewalk. Thomas Hdrgs-,;._Assisjtant
City Engineer;- stated- •there -:would,_ _b&� a. need-, for. some .'.signing. Comm. Bals- haw;.
objected to the �posvingfj6f,.,sb.- many -.Sign s,,-in-- the., City
: He felt therer, was a need' -
t . o contro . 1�, the p osting,*:bf�;va.ripLUi".street isigns,:,,.pr6pdsed: by, the Engineering
'Department and, any.. sign,.recouimen'dation.''shoiild be referred to. thd Planning
Commission. Bicycle path, areas: should be.. kept as c1ear, as. . pd. ;ie. It is - the -
prime, 'oncer.n.,of the Planriing,,Conmiis-s.iotk,,to. ascertain. the- asp ects i,:of i the
".
Hargis stateU
."thatistreet name! signs-,-1,. twoA stop sighs'�and perhaps two
30 -'IMPH'slgps, -are warranted'-fbr .the ,subdiv.-ision;,:; `Bicycle. signs.,- a-re',Igener Y).-
;P f 'he mbto:�ists'� ka'th&t.:.th&ft,the, cy c I I s tw.1
o 8t-'O i e
dt. o t
Petaluma City P-lann n' -' _ y g •Commission Minutes; January'4�,' 1978
_i The ;Pub'1'c`Heariiig was, opened"to con`si`dei the pro,p,osed PUD R'ezon-ing`: • Mrs.
Thomas;; 'C'andlewbbd •P-ark `ese`jasked' r th'`homes wo'ul'd 'Fiave City water and 'sewer.
Comm. Waite -explained that Gi,ty 'water' and' 'sewe'_r would• be` available. The Pubic
Hearing ,was dlosed.
Mr;., Weeks`: said" the'i' `. was° a.`=comp'le't'e • land'scap;e'`d"esign? _p, an for fhe "project:-
F,rom ai°•'procedural 'sta'ndpo' =nt; Comm. ;Lavin `c'ommente`d'rlandscape plans 'are.'as-
signed ito ;:tfie a11otinent ;b,oard,.`' -He' asked`I f th•e='development wa's' considered for
PUD when _eva'luate'd 'by the;, allotment system?' .-.Mr. -8'al1 acknowledged that. the .
subd-iVisIon was considered SV' .PUD rezoning,:
Comm. Shearer moved-,'.torecoininend approval , o-f' the .requested PUD -rezoning, and -
Tentative, Map to the : C•ity° Council with ahe .specif-i f_ind'ings, with the .fol-low-
'_ng cha'nges.- .The. motion .was seconded .by_ Comm. Hor.ciza, .
RUD. EZON,:'ING MAP
.,cQAditi�oii'"l: -' rew.o;rded• Tl e Ib1_1owing minimum, -setbacks "Will be ,required' for .
res` dent al main,:;`:bii l:d ngs .-'of the th_r;ee 'prop.ose'd r.esid6i tial building'''
, models•:<- - � ,... .. -- • :f: ,
l�)- 25-,f'oot:''minimum.'f,ron't; yard: setback. ;
r-.
;2,) "'"5=fgo:t:'minimum' 'side'. :yard: s'etback' fo'r- the main;: residential buildings livalbe
,area`) „
,11-'foot minimum 'aggregate side- yard :setback for, the main residential build=
i.ngs (livable area:);
0- oo e., mini 'mum rear `yard' s'e' tback'.` _
Condition 2 - reworded - I-ndiv:iddal dr�iweways-are to be 16 feet wide "and all ,
common :driveiaays'�ard to be• 24 feet 'wide with a contig"uous surface' exeep�t °for• a'
maximum :4=:font, b 10--fao:t,'�wide, planting insert --area'. adjacent' to `th6e idewa: I
line''`. to ;facil'itate 'the planting o,f_ "a. common:'.p;ro.perty,sresdeiitial tree•.on th'e";
p.ropert.,y.' 1-ine - in^ `such,.aocat ionsi.
.,Condition 6---•cha_hged -.,Dedication of•.%the entire ,'opens space, ar'ea,•sball be., a
condition of the- Tentat,ye Map. Random planting of trees along the perimeter
o,f, .Sunrise Pazkway `shall 'be: provided within' +the open space area;
condition 7 :"- -;added `- 'The`xequiremen' of the Cld-df:. `.Building Inspecto"n Fire
:Marshal; Po'Hei De' ad tment., Public Works'bepartmeftt : Pacific Gas '&..El;ec°trio`
_.;ComP anYr "arid °P,'acif 'c ,'Tel`eph'one `a" a'tated' - n1ithe staff' report s�hall`�.be 'adheted
to• by. ,the subdivider 'throughout pro,7 ect d'evelopme'nt.
•. TENTATIVE '•MAP°,
'Condition, 4, rev--ised... All sirig'le` family?'_lots which -,back on-North''McD6we11`
shall -be ,provided, with a uniform.�6-foot solid+ fence' along the, property line,
arid` the single-family'lots ,adjacent t'o: Candlew',00d:Mob°°Te',Home -Park shall have.a
uniform 6 foot solid fence ,,& on,g its' property.'''line Both ,rear yard fencing.
requirements shall be subs ect { to t•he requi-r'e e,nts. of ' the City' Zoning° and' Subdi
-
•v'ision Ord nances' and',to the�'satisfac`tiori,.of the `P,lanriing' Director.
- 3-
Petaluma City Ylanriihg -Commission,`Min-u'te's:,;,.'Janu'aiyr.::4!,„ 1978.
Condition 6 changed '.Dedication., of open- space area, sli4 - fl,-be a*
condition of:the, Tentative- ',Ma�, Random r plfantin'g`itreeb� 4-1-oh h
o along„ perimeter
•
Parkway,. -shall . b x�ithhf the,, open. -'spa- space a-rela,.,
of 'Sunrise, ,r e. p ,ovided
Condition 14-- added The. requirements. of', the Chief- Building Inspector, �ctor, Fire
. e
Marshal; ;Pollee Department.;. J'ublic:'Works. Department:- Pacific; Gas: &'r Electric..
. shall..'be- adhered
Company, and .Pacific Te�-!E�phone as, s t a�-ed.. in. - the �staff- report
to, by; the. subd1vid'&r. throughout . p±qjjedi't development;.'.;;
,.Condition 15 .,7.. added The,ap'plicant shall - satis.f-0� the: Sonoma. County.- Water
Agency requirements with concurrence -of-, thoserecommendattons, by. the City.
AY E S -5 NOES 0 AB S tNT7 '2
Z
- p .
INDIAN CREEK ,PROPER- Mr. Hall explained an application had been .received
TIES' '(CHRTSTENSEN& from. Christensen & Foster., re the''Indian.
presenting
FOS TER) -&.�,L. 4. Creek ;pro'pe,rt-y, to rezone .5.,,16• acres lo:cated_-a:t- the,
EVAL'UATION, REZONING, southerly: corner of: Lakeviljre�,Rfghwd qrid- Pet-i&l
" I ' I I . -, --- _. .. ' - i 111. _ -Y - - _. - - _. E�!M
FROM, M-1. (LVGHT Avenue - from M�L , Light Indusarialr. to •'C7% Highway.,
IND,USTRIAL,TO-,C7H Commercial. TheCommission had. App.roved.". an, archi�,
(HI'GIIWA-Y COMMERCIAL) :' tec:tural- and !site, desxgn...review..on- November, 1t..'1-9.,77
for an.1ndustrf1al:/hea)W comme'r-.cal tompil,ek.. The -
Applicant indicated ,that-. some, of;, the uses,,of-' the: comp'le X...wpuld, bel,usesper-
,mitted, in a• highway, commercial zoning 'd'istrilct,;, but 'not permitted in
light. industrial- zonJ1Vng,:dis:,ttict,,., .Therefore, ethe app"licarit -was', AUVTse'd-. to,
;.an, s ubm1 't ap.pLicdtTon, to rezone, the, proper,ty tp. G r!H,, highway commercial,.,
Mr.. Hall stated, that. letters, a& be'en.,,r-.ece1;Ve_d._. from V., R. Hil-kilgoss,, Westeril-
Mo.t.prs, And, Don •.Paige," Western, A66bile S'alesj� in, opposittion,,,to- th&.- rezoning
applicafton;.=
7
Comm,." jHorbita- -'asked,. -if• there: was. a -tendency to rezone p-r-op-er-ty;,qnI_L-a kEv
jllghway,,'. ftom, -commercial •,to_ industrial.. Mr.... H&I'L..ex-plaided there is' a,, d6finite,_
,rdixt,ii,t-,.e'of,-,commetcia,l�.,versus,,- industri.a.1, uses_: He ind1cated.,thdri-e was, no, C7rH:'.
,zoning, past, Petroleum Avenue,. Comm. Lavin• recd1led!.tfi&t� f-h!- Nbvembe-r- t h I is:
— -1 1 I. - .pr07
perty-was` zoned, M-L,, -and the-. applicantt- was, aware athat, time, 'that some, of the.
-uses might ipdqiii-re, a zoning -change., •4
•The' Public Hearing, to: consider the.Envi* rbrimental . _Impact'. . Qijest ionrfalve. -was'.,%
son�, atvorn�ev . h.ti-ri R., Hi . lligo,ss�, stated: that the
.opened. Matt, Hud x e�p r e s'e g W
one P. r itu e,,, -c o ftc- e- r h is ,thd -traf f ic. on Lakevvillle• Highway-. , When the,, Hiltli�gpss's.
d'6velaped,their prbper,tyj -they.y were', require&,by '.CALTRANS, toy ded1cdte-,*a p6rtioh.
0,f.-,,It1i&irP)ropeyty-; Mr. 'Huds x On .0 Olaifted-,that-:.poliol.es r%e,la:,ted.,,,,t.o«,c.ommericial,-
and industrial development "in the.. EDP- states,. it. js�- the-,C-it.y`.s po'licy, that,
neighborhood and -community commercial, 'districts be carefully tela-ted• toi resi—
dential service. -areas in-,- iming,, size and location; and, that thoroughfare,,
commercial. zonfng,be severely limited-.. -The question arises then -'on. whb th6r we
he6d 'mbxer,commejccial, areas;.,-'- -This. :area, is, general. ,
ind;us.t,r;i al,.
I Edward%Fosi-er,j;, member -of the -Indian. Creek. P'r.qperties,-.expl,�a-'3",ried the, -prodect had.
various-_ uses-- deal ing, - Fi'th,- automotive•,.boat- repair- 4riawarehousing, . This, type
s§f,'ul as. -it �prpvides,-one.. stop, for ,, automobile
c�f. � complex -,has become 8 uc, c 6
owners.;; as well. 'a-s: boat pwners$. 1t:would. be,.., an. asset ..:to.1dat 'owners if facili-
ties- are -provided, near the, boating :f acil_T=ties: on Pet-toleuO Avenue,. Mr., Foster
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes,'— January. 4,. 197,8:
stated CALTRANS requested .that ,access:be provided further, back on;Petro;leum
Avenue. There will be.'land scap ng.be.tween Lakeville Highway.,
the qn-site
'area. and at, the setback. buildings. There is. -a, need for.-this,itype busine"ss and
this wddld, be 'an ideal-lokca: on. Mr. Hudson stated a study. -has -never been -
presented to they City,o.n,,whether this is. a. valid: zoning. change. Mr: Fo_'st'er•:
:..,. a:
stated' this. was' correct; that ,the. City staff has• no" indicated there is a need
for a'market survey.'`_. '
Comm. Horciza moved. ,to- direct: the Planningl, Dire, ctor• ,to -prepare_ and post :a•
,Negative Declaration for the project. The motion,•.was..seconded by Comm.. Shearer.
-AYES'.5 NOES O AgSENT,:,2-
The Public Hearing was opened to consider the proposed C-H,,.HighV4y Commercial,
rezoning.
Mr.. Hudson.stated,,Vbat. th-e •p;ropgsed,�rez0n ng does not=•c'onform to the General
Plan arid..,the,Envir.onmental,Design Plan,.:. This,, is, a. general Andust,rial area.
None. of.; the to
:are industrial., they ,are all_ retail.:. , ,Since • the -,zoning,. does
riot conform,
onform .•to 'the. EDP .or the General ,Plan ir, can_ not.. be .agpxov.ed by the Plan-
ning .Commission,,or. City.. Council,. ,We -do,. -not need' more, commercial- zones,; but. -
industrial zones, for, better tax;':bases: .;CALTRANS....comments• were related,.to-.a
project in -an M-L District_- ;Document,s;•.froin 'CALTRANS .d: 0d not .-indicate,,what they
want. to do, ,,pg.r did they make: a final :d"ecision on what the,';ded cation ..would be
and;;on.how; the, traffic would•=;flow. : You - are trying, to fit -a project,.'into .a;.zone
that witll not .take it_ ;This, ._change would encompass all Ythe,:desires the ;appli-
CO#,t wants.
Comm., Horci.za.4stated, that the uses .ap.plied for-cou;ld�"come•under�a'-PUD,rezoning.
Mr,. Foster stated, .the proposed, use of • the property .should enco_ urAge ;'some: •type
of° development along .Petroleum .Avenue,. They.,would riot.object to ,a° U,D :rezoning
and •,their request would be the, ,same, as presented•:.. M., Patricia H ll goss,,
opposed; the.,rezoning, stated this is a, policy •,change: and, the,•EDP,,,should-.stand
,as a,'c,epted by, the Planning :Commission' and, City. Goun 114. TIie.Public.Hear Ting
was, 'closed. ,
Comm. Balshaw stated that C-H is, designed to serge ''the travelling,;pub'lic. An
M-L District would not .,allow -the- businesses that, are; proposed: There., -:is -,no'
indication .they will; -serve: the ,ravelling public,:We',. ar.e. making.,.., de:termina-
tion, -on where.. the .M-L`',zone stops... Comm-. Horciza-: stated -,that ; Lakeville with'` its
existing; traffic can .stand only so 4niich ,development. Ile would. like, to :see.• boat
sales and services located along Petaluma Blvd. South, rather than•out.of the
City,... rComm.. Shearer .s.tated . this is ,a. small ,,p'grcel_.:of land_ and • ,the :.complex
wguld..servi'ce. boats -and, cars,. ;and,.w.ould. keep traffic. away. from th'e.downtown
;area. Comm. ;Balshaw asked if, the uses. wouuld-•„fit into a: M-L.,zone:.; 'Mr,. Hall
stated there, isW the question of'.the allowance�-of satelite uses.. . ' lt is' Rnot
certain that all uses, propased_ would,,:b'e. •allowed,:.
'Comm., Horciza moved to -recommend denial of` the. requested C=H,'Highway Commer-
cial, .re'zon ng to' "fhe City `Couiici•l M 'motion' was � se`,onded `by Comm. ' Balshaw.
AYES -4 NOES 1. -ABSENT. 2
`Mr,: Foster- aske`d__ if'the Commission' would°.- consider a' PUD 're'zoning.. Mr . Hall
exp-la ned the applicant should make ap:p`lic'at on"for "a .PUD rezoning and specify
all uses`.
-.5=
Petaluma, City P`Iann ng' Commission -Minutes; January `4,,, 1978
• -
MARIN=SONOMA-*'MOSQUITO Mr. Hall �exp.la'i,ned'_ the request ,by the,• Mar n-Sonoma
ABATEMENT'DISTRICT Mosquito Abdtemdent,,',Distr ct :for a. corporation yard 'and
E..I.'Q: EVALUATION/USE development.; for be '1'ocated.' at -515".North 'McDowell Blvd.
PERMIT/;SITE''DES;IGN. --The proposed develo,pmerit would include an.office build-
REVhEW'_, ing,'shop and garage. With .covered .bay; fish raising
p pond, parking lot °and,small•accessory'srtructures. The
Parcel con'ta'in's 1.:15 acres The roof, overhang and _one•archtec"tural'-feature of
the -office, building extend into the..req,uired front and 'side_ yard ;setbacks. In
addition,, a' gas: pump -•.to, -be .:located -on the -left side ',of .,the <s t:e is too close to
the;`prop.erty -line The prop osed''developmen't,° nfringes on the' area designated
by the -City 'f'or. the .;future- extension of Rainier Avenue: In order to -provide
for' the, planned- extension of•Rainier Avenue -to the -Freeway, an,.approximate-43-
foot.side.strip of land bordering the south .side of. the property will need to
-Ve -:acquired 'by the City;
.Mr. Hall stated.the staff."had met•w th the District Board to redesign the
project to proVide-1-of','the extension of: Rainier Avenue:: =Comm:-Baishaw gbed-
tinned the need for an 786-foot, wide. right=of-way, if' only- ontoff'•x'amps''are
planned. The, 4pplicant 1 wants 'a �dec_ision,.'ton ght that` commits, the 'City °to
Rainier -Avenue,,'..'' ,A provision, -is needed -for,, the;-:extensiori• of 'Rainie'r 'Avenue 'so
that- no.~str:ucture will be --permit`ted in this' area. CALTRANS n'd ca':te•s .we -are,
talking. dbout' It.• to; -2� n mil•liodollars fo'r` a, -freeway ovexcross ng; We .need an
east:/west- -crassing,:; is' this -that" connec_t.1on. : He bisuaTized theE•'C'ity buying
into' .something` before ;they 'had a; `chari'ce °to' • s'tudy 'it.. Rainier 'extension is-
esbeing lanned, as, a major eas/west crossing .d'pehefa'itttthi_ Planning
- ;Comm ssio,n"'and,rCity Cou'ndil,haV6'-riot designated,.-`thA.V specific 'area fo"r are=`
connection: Someone is pulling strings. An 86-, foot wide: street. is` an 'absolute
waste; why do we•need 86 feet for a 60=foot'.road? Mr. ,Hargis explained that
.,-'Rainier' Avenue•--is;'•set''up a;' a four=lane-`.road with --an' 86-foot, -right-of-way.
Comm. ',Balshaw asked when -it W" determined that a 4.3-foot'dedication- would
". te
86-footre'dfr,RneAve-in' igned the project•~'as 'an,
ir is
w d''e overcros's n;g" when''it was the Planning, Commissionrposii-Ctsito
-determiiie,':wha't arid• where. the specif is p'_r-oj.ect > should be,'• ''Mr; H'ar.gis stated the
staff would -make ,a recommendation t'oi the •Commission and that .the:.spec= fic
project would' go thr_-ough the planning process-; including; the possible -need for
an environmental 'impacLt ;report,,. :-
`Comm:'•Balshaw stated;: -all that; -is necessary . s�-,to keep tl e� area'.'cleat"r f;or': the
�Ci;ty:-to'•take•-condemnation a6vi:oxi• -in• the future;.-- Comm. Shearer'_ stated'. the.ap-
p'-licarit has' Yield l p-rop'e'rty-for -several yea"r,s:- 'They want: a cominitment``f'rom,
the :City on' how they -can develop their 'property;. '
Mr. `Ha-11 stat'e4-' the<.0 =ty •does no t'-have'a specifi'c':design for -;the .Vrioject;; .but
would`'like. to' be - realis'tic..,'an'd�'make ,an' %allowance:'fo.-r an:"ul't' mate '43-foot right-
'o-f=way. ';Comm: • ''Ba1'shaw •stated' thisdesign- .,t at 'will commit 'the it to,
purchase; th"s land. ` Dons t.y.ou think the City s;ta•ff could, approve .an ea
st-/west
.connection? This'project'•i's being,• accepted with6ut..an'._E1.;T:;R.
The: ,Public; :Hear:ing,: to, cdasider. the. •,'Envi-ronmentdl: Impact Questionnaire , was•
opened.
Dick Li'eb, .Lieb ,&:_,Quaresma,, .:stated the',: app'lican-ta needs -some direction from the.
City. The •project. will.''not. be built.,mmediateJi,,,but- a decision is, needed on
the' 43-'foot r,.ight-of=way~. This would effect the`site •plans .if the, right-of-way
is taken.
6,
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes,, : January. 4,;j 10"M
Allan `Telfo,.r.d,:_Manager,,: Marin=Sonoma Mosquito-Abatement;Dist>ri'ct, stated the
board needs something .,off .i_cia-1 from the:,City -that_they scan look ,at , so. they can
make. a decision. " Mri. .,Hall-, sta'ted.'the -City cannot„ further commit-11-self at this
time. The. City, will woxk- wfthi,,the •:District: to.. redes=ign,,the �pr_oj'ect;: It would
involve a trade ,of , land. ,- The City would, have•to, ,p.urcha,se :land -to give :to the
District in trade for the right -of -way taken., The>P.ublic Hearing was, closed:
'Comm.. 'Hor(fiza stated we -are -dealing with.°the_p.roblem of Rai-nier •Avenue which.
should., not, really concern the: applicant;'-if';they can rearrange:their project.
Comm..Horciza moved to direc"t.the.Planning;Director'tq :prepare and post a
Negative Declaration for the project. The motion was seconded by Comm. Shearer.
AYES -5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2
'Comm.•.Balshaw stated there is n`o,way the,. City can justify taking land unless an
exchange of land is made., The City wo.uld,-have to;pur"ehase:land- from a private
holder,: Comm. Waite asked who knows when ;and if this willtake. place. . Comm.
'Balshaw stated we were -told to approve one-way on.and•off ramps, but how.does
that-j.iistify four ,lanes. Comm. .Lavinstated we are talking "about an -increment,
of 16,_feet. If- there. is ;going 'to be a .`street there,, some: portion of ,the appli-
cant"land has to be taken-. and is., it not good insurance, -to.. take .an additional,
16,feet. It might be cheaper-"to.buy the 16 feet'than to condemn •their~property'
at a later, time. The Public.'H;earng was closed.
. L C
'Comm .,,.Horciia moved, ;to,.grant.the. UsePermit,to allow for a, coporation facility.
fThe, motion was seconded by Comm.. Shearer.
AYES' 5 NOES, 0. , ABSENT. 2,
,Comm., Shearer moved -to -approve the site design :for ,the•pro:posed:proje'ct with
conditions of approval as - recommend'ed by staf-f .,and' modified by. th`e- Architec-
t'ural And .Site Design Review- Committee with the. fgllowing changes. The; motion
was seconded by Comm. Ba'ishaw..
AYES' 4 NOES 1 ABSENT Z.
Condition 3 - reworded to read - Gasolne.,pumps=sha-l-l. be .set back .at :leas t.-_ten
(10) fe'et -from all property lines and shall• be.;protected. from vehicles by ap-
p'ropri`ate barriers'. Both the "acce'ssory gas pump shelter" and the "accessory
truck: wa& equipment at-ructure" shall be screened -with landscaping from the .
vision,,of•motoris-s using the existing and planned street system.
Condition 6 = reworded to read •- The, three (_!).existing NIo.nterey Cypress trees
located..n-the ",rigl't side ;yard ,shall .be yp.ermanently preserved in good_ growing
condition. The removal, of; any other. trees' -on- the site shall, be subject tg
approval, by the. .Planning Director: The" strip of open space -located. in front of
the site . shall_ be fully improvedwith' 'landscaping and irriga.0, .-facili.t'- es
consistent =with; the . remainder of; the site. All trees shall ..be, a minimum
fifteen. (15) gallons in size; and all shrubs shall.be.at least -five (5) gallons.
'Plans indicating all -required landscape modifications and an automatic irriga-
tion.,system shall be submitted to the -Planning -Director for.rev_iew and approval
AD- p-rior 'to, the issuance. of a building; permit.
Condition 7 - 'Deleted.,
-7-
Petaluma- City Plannin'g;,rComm ss• on rMinutes; -January. 45' -1978`
" Condition 8 -.-,deleted and replaced-.:.The•.designated twenty=four (24') foo.t wide
f itur.e;., 4rxueway rshall be.' connected with the`-,pro.po-se_d, street.-' ri thie, ndus,trial
par-k .to the north ,within -one, (1). ,year, follow;ing'.the -completion of� said ,s: 'reet.
At such. time_; and •.therea_fpgy,,. ;the North, McDowell Blvd'. driveway shall be used
for-, automob.ile,'and pick-up• truck traffic _on'lyy,
- OTHER BUSINESS-..., Gomm. -Balshaw,:,requested a -report from •'the, Engineering
Department, -to -,include the projected -traffic arid,., design.
on Rainier Avenue:.
' ADJOURNMENT: There .being no further business;, the, Meeting adjourned
at. 'll:'40 p.m.
• �_ �/_'f��+ice. �i
�' -��.�(!• r�:v�
®,
_
Chairman
F>�