Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/07/19781 - ma. B r 0 l "MIS •. - `2 , , REGU MEET -TNG LAR MARCH 7, `1978 CITY ' CHAMBERS 7 : 3:0 , P. M. CITY ' iHALL - PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA The P,lannin.g .Commission encourages applicants: or- their rep,re'sentatiue `.to be . available at the :meet • °to• an; questions;. 'so that rid agenda items• need ., be defienir d to a later I dfat.& due to a lack of pertinent- information. , - PLEDGE1 ALLEGIANCE 'TO• `THE F =LAG' " ROLL ;CALL: Comm: Balghaw Head, - Horciza Lavin Shearer " Waife STAFF.' Ronald Hall F.. , Planning Director. AP PRO VAL''.OF MINUTES i ' CORRESPONDENCE: ' CONSENT CALENDAR': Items';a Baran on the •Cons'.ent'Calezidar will be considered to be routine by 'the pp.. g; _. Planning lConhissibn And,iwill be enacted by. -motion. There will be no separate discussion of these .items.. If discussion is desired, that item (or items) will be removed •'from'the Consent Calendar. ' NORMAN,.R'ICHTIK;.: E.I'..,'Q. Evaluation and Design- "Review of'�`�a ,. } ' _ prop.osed . s in gle - family unit to`'.be located . at 315 - °Baker ..St'reet,. QANTAS. "DEVELOPMENT CO.RP- � 1, Public Hear.iig to evaluate the Environmental E.I Q. EVALUATION /." Imp:act,Questionnaire fo:r:�_a pro posed'.�.prezo,ning PRE-ZONING ;FROM : 'COUNTY. '.'A':' • of' approximately 74.5 acres-from .County TO CITY. P.CD - (PLANNED`'` A ricultural to City PCD (Planne COmmunity COMMUNITY' DI:STRICT)`.: District)„ (continued), • °. 2,,. PuK c Hearin to consider the proposed Hearing P • -p prezoni'ng, request' locat'ed' on the no;rthwesti si:d'e of Ely Blvd: north near Lynch Creek. yr. PETALUMA PLANNING..COMMISSION AGENDA , : ".F 7 .. MARCH W:ILLIAMS & AGUIRRE- Public Hearing to consider a variance to the Zoning VARIANCE TO SETBACK' Ordinance to allow :for reduced - front'. yard setback AND AREA- REQUIREMENTS and area for - .lots •fronting on Mqc-1-i Si Drzve. FOR CER,TAIN'MIWOK MANOR SUBDIVISION LOT&: AMENDMENT - TO: PUD SECTION: OF ZONIN G ORDINANCE $,`I.Q.. 1. Public, Hearing' o 'evaluate the;Evi t nronme s i1 EVALUATION %ZONING', Impact Queinni or d' - amendment pstoare f !a propose ` ORDINANCE ,AMENDMENTS _. to the P.U.'.D.'-!Section °of': the Zoriin g . Ordinance, 2,:. Public Hearing ;'to consider the; Zoning Ordinance - Amendment.. _ I AMENDMENT,TO''ZONING ORDINANCE.,BARBED.WIRE l Public Hearin g to evaluate the,Environmental FENCING= E..I..Q EVALUATION.-' - Impact Questionnaire for a proposed ZONING- ORDINANCEi. AMENDMENTt1: to: the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Public Hearing to consider a proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to provide for barbed wire fencing;. _.AMENDMENTS °TO SIGN SECTION OF'.ZONING ORDINANCE, :: Public Hearing to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding non' - con forming sign abateinent°?pyrocedures and: enforcement. ti'�ENDMENT 'T0, SUBDIVISION 1„ Public He'arzrig •to evaluate the Environmental ORDINANCE TO'.COMPLY WITH, Impact,,Questi'onnaire for a proposed Amendment :NEW STATE GUIDEL to the: Subdivision Ordinance to comply with new E';,.I Q, °EVALUATION/ State Guidelines promulgated -January 319118,, SUBD•IVI•SION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT,,'' 2 • Public Hearing o consider a''p S,ub:divis_ion ,. Ordinance Amendment implementing AB 884', ADJOURNMENT: '• - .,.NOT , OEF,ICIAL.,'UNTIL APPROVED BY THE PETALUMA PLANNING 'COMMISSION, M I, N, U 'E.aS'` PETALUMA PLANNING` COMMISSION MARCH 7 • l9`78 REGULAR MEETING T. 30: P,.M CITY .COUNCIL CHAMBERS',,. •,CITY: 'HALL `E CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm: Balshawy.• - Horciza, ,Lavin,,: Shearer -, Waite ABSENT: None _ STAFF: Ronald F. Hall;:Planning,Director. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: - .The; minutes of the ; meeting Of' February 22, ,19,78; . were approved correc ed ". Page 1, eor,rec<t spell -rig 'to - _p read, Comm,, , Shearer.. CORRESPONDENCE; (1`) Commissioners informed their Conflict of Interest Statement's - - are due &t the County -•Clerk!'s Office April '30,, 1978- (;2,) Request •City Council to appoint •Planning. Commis- sioner.:. ' (3) Introduced.,.Cyntha• Beeken• .Associate Planner`':: CONSENT CALENDAR • The motion was.. .made by Comm. Horc -za, seconded by Comm. Shearer to approve the- Consent.Ca°lendar. Motion was.: carried unanimously. Agenda Item :1 Norman R`ichtik,• Site ,Design_ Res 5:,528 approving;;single- fam ly do t`to -be located at 315 Baker Street-: QANTAS' ";DEVELOPMENT Mr. Hal 1- explained- 'the request• of : Qan-ta's Development to S., ..Q. EVALUATION/ cons der'the p" "'rezoning' of „approximatel '74.5 acres PREZQNING FROM COUNTY': - locat:ed on the -Ely rBlvd., riorth o,f "'A:' TO' .:CITY :'PCD Lynch Creek, `from County " A" Agriculture 'to City PCD, (PLANNED�CQMMUNITY. . Community District „ . 'The Applicant. propos es to DISTRICT) Continued.'' develop the - site in five phases with. a. total of .177i zero ;lot line domes -- 40 quadr-apiots_, arid 4220 •mult” family' units,; :for a total o , uni`ts .- The pr'ev'ious pr- ; ezoniang .c`ontained 2,47' units The project• would include the extensions of Mar.i.a `Drive and Rdinier•- Avenue and would provide-ac;r.eage -for a proposed elementary ;school site: Primary- access the "; development would be by Rainier 4enue -off Nog-th•,McDowell Blvd Maria Drive and •Ely Blvd''. 'North. The most significant • would be the ant1c:4pafed ,traffic generated from the• develop - ' men t,. - J Petaluma' City• Planning, °Commission. Minutes, March 7, 1 QANTAS 'DEVELOPMENT A discussion was 'held "on the traffic at, the inters'ec- E.,I. „Q,. EVALUATION /, tion of 'McDowelItEast Wa'shirig,ton. Mr. Hall explained. • PREZONING -FROM COUNTY': ` the maximum capacity of the, intersection is 1,500 :AD.T "A” TO.CITY';PCD at peak hours: (PLANNED. COMMUNITY. DISTRICt) Continued: Tom Harg s, "Assistant City En gin e6r explained an; E.I.R. keep_ s k trac of tfiee ,proJ.ected traffic and indi= ,ca when we.ar:e: at.a saturation paint ; - We 'are. "work- ing with CALTRANS to get conceptual approval, for.a.new connection on •Rainier. .Avenue,i as 'a..relief to-McDowell Comm.. Head stated perhaps w,6'should have "a morator =ium. .on building • this - area,: Comm. Balshaw- stated' if. we. are, talking about ,stopping 'development, we, ,should tell - ;the • develop'er' �now'.. We do not want developers to 'do,-anythin g about"M- Dowell, as we are__relying on. Rainier Avenue.: Mr -: Hargis explained "that traffic from this: development will on the . .adj''acent'_arterial street system. Unless. Rainier Avenue -is Fconstructed, his intersection..:._will- be .like Steele `Lane. Rainier -Aven:ue is proposed to be 52 feet wide ,curb to curb w :parking,,;. and 6.4.1 wide where it :goes into the quadrap'lots . Comm. Head 'asked if based on, all the environmental Impacts we .have on traffic information, would we .accomplish anything by having another E•.I.R.� ?, Mr. Hargis, explained an-E.I.R. would act a monitor by keeping track ,of 'when y6u would break the camel'•;s back with tthe straw. The Public Hearing to ,c'onsider the Environmenta : l. Impact Questionnaire was opened:., Dr. D., V- i'ckers,' Superintendent, Old Adobe School District., stated ; a school on the Qantas, propetpyl,. ds very important rand should be, located • at the northeast corner of the property, off, Ely Blvd. The National Aeronautics. Commission had ,eliminated the previous ; pote tial school site on ;Ely B'lvd;. due, to its +;proximity to the airport. The district will be concentrating solely on _ _ the Qantas area for. -a school site,. Jon. -lyn,, Qantas Development,, expla -ined. they,., added'. 13 acres;; immediately' to tl e. south•, to the Plan. And asking. for approval to ;pr- ,oc'eed with annexation of these add`itorial. 13 acres. Comm , stated a neighborhood' park, s needed - in,th s *ar:ea.. Lucchesi Park serves a diff;erent.,group -and a different" This: is an; deal location for.a'.,park. 'It, wo.uld .used ;by. single family - homes, as well as.- ;multi family homes : Dr. Vickers stated, -a `school located; -next ­ to . a ;park is ..subj ected to vandalsm . Comm. Head stated it costs to maintain a- park`and from an e.conom- ical standpoint it is' more - feasible ";to have a"park combined with a school. Comm., -_Balshaw" , s.ta -ted- .the school .dis,ttict -has; •their philosophy: The EDP =. Cates as,chool 'locations,, and• =the , ,school ;district .:should make a. eommk.tment, as to. school•. Will Johnson, School Board. Member,: stated the prop'os'ed schoo`1 is 'to•o c,lo.s.e to7 the Bernard' Eldredge ;School;. :It .was made• quite clear„ that - we,. wanted, this; school site,.moved and, 4t should be in the - northeast, s.e'ction. Jon Joslyn "stated : lie had met with the scl oo,l board L and where was ,considerable uncertainty on the projected attendance.. The developer had been informed by previous! •members; o;f the, :sch;ool ' that-,they , did not want ;a . school on an,. arterial.. stree .system. . He believed - t was, a policy ; to �o�in a,,pTrk .a with a : school ,.site.- .- Mr:. josIyn _did not, feel that-, 2,00 feet would -d;estroy the attend_- ante .,record`. Mr. Joslyn. stated the school .wants:. this site ;, in, :other words,,.� either ,you get what •you,,want now or you might not get 'it. later -2- Petaluma City Plannin "g Commission Minutes,, - March 7; 1978' . ANTAfi „DEVELOPMENT' Head stated this ro ect: Q � Comm � � p � ”' process for .e has been in E.1 Q . EVALUATIQN /. four years and ,asked- .why ahe. problem" of schools, = conies: • P,-REZONING .FROM COUNTY . up now. Dt. Vic'ke`rs stated • °they had :met with "A'' T0: ".CITY ;PCD developer and. stood on the enortheast spot' for sometime.: ( _ The` ,Public 'Hear''' g ,r • DTSTRIC�') Continued:; " -in was clo`sed,' ;• r. , PLANNED COMMUNITY Comm. Aalshaw: stated. the school and the development wi,l'1 gerierafe traffic.. When the Mas "ter E.I..R. is available we Will get all the specifics. Comm. Waite "s'tated it is the City's p.olicyr to have '500 units a year and' ,it is the City'`ss 'responsibility to mitigate tr af fit a s MasterE I,e t th Com R is' for- thcomingto l t theCitywhic 'htwilll at a encompass' the entire city and.developments - a negative' °declaration should be posted and the 'tight reserved to° require an E. I.,R at 'the. PUD' and, Tentative .Map' stage. Comm Head moved to direct the, P1'anni�ng Dir.'ector 'to prepare and .p "ost a Nega- tive Declaration for the` project with: - -the' following findings' 1) The,: Planning Commission is 'aware of the traffic problems; 2) The applicant,,, Qantas. .Develop- went, ..shal'1 berespons-ble ,for a�l.l' statements in. their letter darted - January 24, 10,82; 3) The Planning, ;Commission reserves the right to regtiife during',s:ubsequent phases of the project.. The motion 'was seconded Coomm." ' Horicza; Motion' carried wtfi 4' affirmative and '2, negative votes. ' Mr. Hall explained thaw a PCD ;is a conceptiu`al' ptram. for outlining the 'type and use of' land... Comm. Waite explained this 18' a proposal for 'a 10 -acre schoo "l,'' "site and' =acre park site, Mr. Hall explained the ,z'oning is for 'PCD. We need to show' =where the sites will be located in'gelat on to the d'eve1- opment,'plan:. The nufnber of acres should be- specific as, it is applicable to the pr:ezonng. . The, Public, Hearing was. opened` to consider the propo:s'ed'•:.Planned Community c G D s rong- pidce ar'k site . sehot tohservethissdeveated `in the p g r • g p,+ p. lopment . ' She indicated there. ,should, be major changes :in -the plan and these would riot .'take ' place._if`•,the. plan was , approved tonight: Comm -. Head stated 'we .have a :respon sib.il ty to the:' public.;: we are responsible for the youngsters and the people in. this development. :'This. plan does meet the cri;tefta, , but, substantial issues have.been.rafsed that ?should be addressed:. Comm 'Shea'r•e_r stated,,.she would like the development redesigned so the. and ,. . school, is• in = "sequel position on•the Comm. Waite s'tat`ed the school. will not be' ahlle;'• to go much closer to Ely with:' he Lands- of Others involved`; there `would no.t b`e ingress and egress to that part of °the City. Comm., ` stated the school •site is in the, wrong place and the park area` is not a:dequa_te t'o serve the 900± units proposed for 'the site,. "Comm'. `Head stated?.we ate , - talking :about redesigning a complete subdivision and .'such- as ., re not talking about .pea'nu and somebody 'will : have `to •pay for it. Comm„ Balshaw• "stated there seems to :be a polic "y problem `hire . We have policies of schools, and playgrounds' this, is ahe crutch 'of`' o.ur dilemna. To send the project back. to tl e''developer i ".s a total. delay.. If, we. act -on it; it "can be appealed to the , :City: :Council what will .create a policy: -3- Petaluma C ity Planning Commission Minute's:, March. 7., l QANTAS DEVELOPMENT E. I.Q.- PREZONING FROM COUNTY, "A" TO. CITY.PCD, (PLANNED COMMUNITY.'- • DISTRICT) Coritinued:,'. ,Xr-. - 'Hall explained we are •looking at; the _plans•, in , the< terms oi♦wha serve the p eople , Home t atj -- in t he h h will `bei using the •park and �the; � scho,c)1., With the proposed q4dd-r.apl6,t_ .-and low- to moderaie-income housi -ng; and -from. a Planning standpoint; . -the pre ent school, lCication is b'ett'je than the nor theas t,'10cat ion because Of its central location.. Mr. J'oslyn. he could' not­believe it would -make that much difference to, move, the,, school 1 to 2�0,0,4 ee-t. Gomm-- Aio'rciza stated that, -w'ith'a11 the. �dif f e'rences in.- opinion from the various groups no clea c ut decision has been - made on where 'the school and park sho be, located;. It 'is! a - matter "df, ftime,, o f, people getting together,, - d1s- cussing, the problem, and reaching a, compromise. :If we require redesign ng 'we will be stopping tfid pr ject for ; a consi:de rable,. amount of time. The' • cond"i- ti6qs attach 'to the p-rezoning could cover this com promise with an indication that 911, res,ponsible agencies are, satisf with the- solution and arrangements. Comm ., 140 moved t recommend approval .of'.the, requested' PCD,,, Planned Gom-, munitv tt ict __�..,pxezloning to the City Cb' n' c � 11 with the speclfic.,,ftndiiq�gs and conditions outlined` in the staff report., 'ThiE� mot-ion:was seconded by C omm . Head. Comm H0'rc:iza and 'Head' rescinded Comm'.. Horciza moved, to re pmeq4, approva.1 of the requested PCD, Planned Community Pi ric-t, p,rezoning, to the City Council with. the spec the f o1- specific„ findings and, cond1:. with ,..Jowing chdngq_: The motion. was .'second,ed- by�*Comm., ;Head,. S .k A Condition 4, added the. public* facilities such, as schools„ Ay roun pq s. and _g d parks, arse. , adequate to serve , the anticipated population •and ;are acceptable• to the public authorities having jurisdic'tion thereof. .Jon Jqsyn . reques lo• the . pr e . z.o . n Ing until. April. 4 .19,78-.... -Comm,. . Shearer moved t& - c6ntinu the Qantas Development - p.rqzon,ing qp,p1iqqt ion to, .April , ,4., .19,78i 'P �m motio seconded by Comm. B6,rciza. Mot =ion carried �q b, On was� secP unanimo^Li4y WILLIAMS & AGUIRRE— Mr. Hall explained thel eques:t of Williams A guirre VARIANCE TO SETBACK a,,5 t6 - 10 ;fO ar'an * v i te.to.t1Te,7.min1mqm front yar d AND AREA REQUIREMENTS setback and area for better 'Utili'za . t:;- ion of lots ad- FOR CERT-AIN MIWOK acent to a 2 no b A n uildable.public utility MANOR SUBDIVIsI N LOTS: easement , along., the . tear aro line!,1or Lots, 80. through 95 on Moclips. Drive in.,the Miwok-Manor Sub..' division. The, Superior. Court ruled that the 20 foot, easement along,. 'the - rear property line of t .79 , ; through. 95 , ..c I ould: not. be - us'ed: by the p ro,per,ty owners j that q. 6 -f ront high chain linked fence. be b.uil,t along' the northerly bbuqdjE(f.y­of, . the P.,G. &E. :20 -f oot w , ide esaeme�fi t prevent: the easement from 'being used; and the • easement Is to b e deeded. to A. , variance . requested fot. Lot-s. '80 * thoiUgh 95. With thei deed of':t-he 20-foot eas ement` to Lots 81 through. Y3 are 80 feet deep. To compensate for the redu6e depth; the: 'lots have 'been widened from the, standard 6 feet t 6& fee I,6as 8 94 and -95 of ,the. l ecornet of the su bdivision a re,, � s a er U - rg - .4 , I _ 471 Petaluma City P lanning Commission Minutes"' Ma�rch` 7--� • "WILL IAMS"�& 'AGU IRRE� 'Me�714K­ic Hea±1 i' wa�s' 'op.ene, -9 co��ider the Variance® VARIANCE TO -N6C comments 'wet6 of fered lfo the audience%.aftd" the AND• - ARE&REQUIREMENTS, Public- .Hearing - was closed. Comm.'- Shearer - que'stione , FOR CERTAIN MIWOK if tonatiderati had beeft-"g%v6 n , , to P,lacing. smaller .MANOR:, I S.tJBDIV LOTS homes on these lots Mr,; Hall exp 1 the develo . per. (continued). had developed a new 1plan='W'!th, variations for the three lots. Comm. Livift,mdVed to rant the Variance' to.altlow f or r&d cedfront yard set-" 9. u backs '.and area-for, lot fronting on Moclips btive_ The mot -ion was seconded by Comm., Shearen Motion carried 1dhAnifibu§lv. it was "the consensus that '(1) amendments, to sigii Section,, and (2) amendments to Subdivision - Ordinance be -next on the 'Agenda,. AMENDMENTS TO SIGN Mt. Hall' the request -to, consider Amendments' SECT_ION to; the. Zoning Ordinance to .regula,te,,_§igrfs and to ORDINANCE: reduce the criminal penalt]le of 'vic)lat-lohs of • the 'Zoning Otdinance., An ordinance rafted zto com . i ne b tdin nce was d th& fprovis'ions of Chap,ter 1&_08 . of <the Municipal Code with the Zoning Ordinance ..'to provide for a: `reduct in criminal` 'penalties for a icing 'of the 'Zoning Ordinance .1 rom. a misdemeanor to infraction. viol t , Comm , . Waite . indicated that Section 2&. 910,e project. ing signs*,, needed clar'ifica-1 ton - ,`S ' ection� 26.ki , does nov provide fo - s�i f­ bdsirie'ss� llocated near 1 1 r - - gping or or"adjzcent 't o a ;.fr6eway, , !fbr�,t total. tbtasign ptojecstion_ A Comm.- t a Rori:�iza. ' the -'Ot I co %p Aould. not;.." be over 4 f eet' from the b,uild­ing of the bracket. -Comm.: Head questioned ' Section 28-2,02 of the Ordinance,. such- pers'on, firm or corporation shall be deemed guilty ;of 4 :separate offense for each - d every diy utirig any portion of which any ViKe(tion of this; Ordinance -is committed or :continued' by ;such person..:' :•He �o to' c6ifi stated. -a _xi lat should be given a,. reasonaVle or qp-ecif ieA,'time ply with th&1aww. -Mr. Hall, indicated 6here is.. an idiifiiiis-tra I n "whi c` =a letter _"s sent to t-he given him Y, number- Q, days to compl w1 the ldw,o When'he - .does' , , not comply within the sp-ecified! matter' i "ref 6 ' 'ea ;day the m 9 rr to the .;.City Attorney., Comm. Balshaw stated ft would. take a court"-dire �tiv.- to impose 'the f ines :. The Public Hearing was opened to ccinsider the amendments to the Z Or -'= nance. Fred' i schram, Chamber of Commerce,, stated. the :ire sign restr I d tfons would be challenge%&. Some of. I the junkie' signs have. 'to - go and some enf procedure. needed -in that sector. Whi le the sign l6nds a flav to- t62 y bu i ld ing, "i p4st�, the a re uni ign has :A Place *on the s.1de. lof� a ' - not A g on a roof., We , need signs that - 'are tasteful,: Th& sign ordinance 'is co in thaZ and should be 'separ,'a so that lay P.eQple can thid'erg nd' it without reading through the entire 'Zoning Urdinanc'e..' The Public Hearing was closed. , Comm'."Shear'er" mciVed to recommend app.r of an Amendment to `Zoning Ordinance • No .1072 N.C.S. to- provide for* the abatement --of + sigps',` legal non - conforming- - Petaluma ,City Planning Commission _Minutes,,, March 197 AMENDMENTS TO SIGN signs an sign perm , procedures w h` 'the, following, • SECTION OF'ZONING change,.• The,mo:tion was seconded by Comm•o.Horciza. ORDINANCE (Continued),:. Motion carried with. 5 aff;irma-tive;, and 1. ,,nega;tve+ vo te's' • Section_ 26. .910 add' - The total pxojection.,from any wall surface shall not exceed four- (4): feet, . including bracket, Comm. 'Shear'er moved. to. recommend ,ap ; proval of an Amendment to Zoning Ordinance.:'' No. 1072 N .Q,S,. providing, f`or the reducing; -of criminal• penalties for viola tions of the Zoning Ordinance, with the following change The motion-was.. second`ed..by Comm..:Horci'za. Motion carried with.5 affirmative and. 1. negative votes:: S'ection_.28 =.2U - add Any person in violation of any of, the provisi:o,ns o!f:: this, ordinance shall first be notified of the infraction by t'he. If •a pol''icy does - not exist regarding a time period,.a time. period shall be es'tab- lished for, .compliance prior .to penalty,, AMENDMENT. TO SUBDIUI Mr: Hall explained the •re- quesit: for an Amendment- to 'the - SION ORDINANCE: TO Subdivision Ordinance - to. comply with new State Guide COMPLY WITH NEW STATE lines pr.omulgate'd January 31, 1a,9�78', implementing the­'-_ GUIDELINES, /E.,1. Q. provisions of Chap' er 4-.65 of Division 1 Hof T- itle.;7. of EVALUATION /`SUBDIVISION, the Government Code, Assembly Bill. No. ,884, which ORD., AMENDMENT:. became. effective January 1, 19 'The new state law • requires that; a'gericies •must,- determine within ,301 day's whether, an application for a 'development project 'i's complete Once cer =f tied as complete the 'City must ;furnish ,env ronm htal review, including' `an: E. IA. if required,, and- approve or deny ° the;,app1ication. within 1 year..- It is `recommended" .that; local; agencies, adopt;' lis -ts ,and: icriteria for determining the completeness ^.of an application..- The..law states•that� local agencies should of -ford qq applicant a reasonable ,o to '�f• le for ai d _g.° . eta decision „on ,;ali entitlements. •f us.e needed :from :that a er g ey •.f or ;a developme:n•t pr.o ect within 1 year. The, applicant has` he option,'`of` .app,ly ng• - for' these entitlements,e'ither individually or- simultaneously, but " >'the 1 -year time 'limit is measured from.the date that, each individual. application is. accepted as complete., Mr,. Hall explained an entitlement means a tentative .map, a °final map., a use permit or a- parcel map, but does not i=nclude - rez '_onng and prezonng,.. T-he burden,.. s. on the. City. to get an E compl :eted!.,,. Cindy' Beeken, :started `tha` I any:�tYi ng that is. leg•is'lative is not °an ;enti•tlement The Publ -ic 'H.earing was' opened to. consider. " the; 'Environmental.. ,imp ;act• :Ques tion -..' nair`e,.' . `No comments were o'ffere'd. f ;tom• °the,. udi -and th =e Public Hearing was c- losed': Comm. Shearer, moved to direct the Planning Director 'to prepare and post a Negative- Declarat=lon for the projec;t., The `motion was seconded by Comm. Head. •The , mo.tion carried unanimously:, -6 Petaluma City Planning; 'Commission M ;nute&, *': March 7 197:8,. AMENDMENT TO:-- SUBDIVI_ ',The -Public Hearing °was opened to consider an amendirient S'ION, ORDINANCE TO to, 'the' Subdivision• Ordinance; implementing AB 8.84 COMPLY WITH NEW STATE GU;IDELINES/E,.I.•Q;. Tom Hargis,. requested the following changes: ,to the EVALUATION /;SUBDIVIRION. recommended: Amendments :to Ordinance No. 1046 N'. C. S. ORD..AMDNEMENT regulating the subdivision of land in the City of (:Continued) : Petaluma; Page, 3 Item 13, change .'second •line to, r -ead, - must determine if the Page 3,, - Item 1 13, 'add, to 3rd-line this title and then. approve After discussion, the, following change was 'recommended Page 34, Item -14.,,line 12' change Planning 'D redt to Planning Commission Mr. Hall, explained. the -final map does not become `a .part of the `tenta map in the 'time., frame. The final map becomes a separate- 'ent and, runs on its own _ The tentat" e map has; to be °processed in one year, .and the final map has one year to be p,rocesaed. Ti e, Public .Hearing was, closed. Comm.: Lavin,. moved to recommend approval of "the proposed- Sulidiv =s on Ordinance Amendment,, mplementin AB 884.with'the.ahove,�rec6mmended changes. The motion g was seconded by Comm Shearer.: The motion :carried 5unanimously :' The Public Hearing w,asl opened to consider the Zoning Amendment. No comments , were offered. from 'thee audience and, the-Public Hearing was closed Comm., Horciza mooed to recommend' approval of an-Amendment to Ordinance No. 1072 :N. C. 'S: ,; :PUD District Pro'cedures' to the City Council with` the, following change The`motidh was seconded b y Comm. Shearer. Motion-carried unanimously. -7- 'Amendment ,AMENDMENT TO R:UD Mr-. Hall, explained the .request to corisider %an• SECTION:.OF..';ZONING; to` the, .Zoning Ordinance to .'Provide for 'establis'hing ORDINANCE= E.I..Q,. TUD' (Planned Unit- D.eve °p'ro`cedures: • When the `EVALUATION /ZONING` Zori rig Ordinance was amended to prov de�for the esaab_. ORD.. AMENDMENT: ^lishment, of: a PUD ,Distr,ict -; -the procedures were inad= - vertently le`f`t out of. the Zoning' Ordinance,. ' The _ " ,proposal outlines the Planning Commission and City' Cou ncil actions - t'e q ul• r e_d. the procedures for development In .d P UD, tim e - limits for proceeding on the "development' plan and.procedures for modifying the devel- opment'plan, The.Pul%lic'Hearing to consider the Environmental- impact Questionnaire was opened. No comments 'were offered, :;from the, ;audience' and - the' Public 'Hearing :was : clos.ed. Comm. Shearer moved to direct the Planning Director to• prepare ,and"post : a Negative Declaration for the °project. The motion -was -seconded by Comm'. Head. Motion car,r.ied The Public Hearing w,asl opened to consider the Zoning Amendment. No comments , were offered. from 'thee audience and, the-Public Hearing was closed Comm., Horciza mooed to recommend' approval of an-Amendment to Ordinance No. 1072 :N. C. 'S: ,; :PUD District Pro'cedures' to the City Council with` the, following change The`motidh was seconded b y Comm. Shearer. Motion-carried unanimously. -7- M Petaluma. City Planhing Commission Miftdtes�, March T '1978 AMENDMENT TO FUD Section. 19'-1002 J_ ended. e I f'r'o` the am-- r e. r td-.t SECTION,OF ZONING Planninv Cbmmis h for study.,­ report and 'r- I e commend— ORDINANCE-E.I-Q. ation. Such 4study,- report and rec'ommendatiq4 s - EVALUTION/26NING" be made by the, Planning �C ommills 00 _s cion thirty :) ORD. AMENDMENT-.r days df 'th& without public'-fiearing, e xc ept p t unless and .-. e t-he,, City Counci may grant the Planning, Commi ssion addliti&,nal'time f'or its review of the matter., " Vaiiure of the P a lannftk - Commission tb Within thirty :(30), i' days or- the extended time - allowed shalLbe *,d`eeme1 to be. aT)Dtoval bf- Dro- nn'_ mnrl I'f'i on i , AMENDMENT TO ZONING Mr 'Hal'r n - the - request modifyz "the Zoning - , e�;plai ed A— ORDINANCE­BARBED• Ordinadce,and City Ordinance .No. 10`29' N•G'.-S.. to all for barbed wire f6ncig'-,�. 'in n C - 7-� H M-L.,d, : Z WIRE FENCING-E. 1..14. wi 1 - . . � I- I n A' 5 � __ M 7 EVALUTION Districts. Because -of, the de or mand ` or security and ORD. AMENDMENT: protection -of: -property, in, these. districts, A the'�amend'­ b i �:7to allow for barbed wire is .proposed;. Open' "a' reas abutting '-such, uses- for. storage purposes , are to� considered, for such feiicing for the sec'utit_y 'of the :buis`lness 'as wel el 1 as -he t pdblidi, particulaYly: ih' .case of f1amma'[Ae'-materials, liquids or products-, ,Th& Public Hearing was 'opened to consider the Erivi ' r'biim( , �nta-l. Impact Question; r1 - aire, No .comments ' i1c Heatlng Was off ered bfro the au'didnce ,and- the �P ub" closed. Com Shearer moved, to direct the: Planning, Direc'tor to prep -a re , ea nd. i po a. Negative .becldrat on, f he motion:wa& seconded by"Comm.. Declaration or the project,.: Ho �c1za;.. Motion carried unanimously. The-Public Hearing­was. opened, ' bons, . id& an -Amendment t the Zoning: Ordinance, . No 107*2` N.,C!��S' . � q Af ld 'City No.,. "1029, 'N�. C. S ;, T , ;, to provide or barbed wire ­ � ­ � - . ' I I ty 'Otdinanc fencin&., No comments were offered' f rom the,audienc&-and.the Publ'c, Hoar was `closed. 'Comm-. Lavin moved to recommend, approval of .:Ah­am&nd_ment, to the. Zoning Ord-1"." trance -,..No .1 N.'C.,S. and City Ordinance No.- 10­29 N.C. S. to' allow for barbed wire fenciiig, in Zoning, 'Districts- A C_1H1,- 'M-L and-m-,G. with-mod-i1l"cat =,as' • recommend'dd by staf with the fbllowlftg , chahge,: Subject to al ato'r' of a Fi ' p Of �the 2bning Administr , Conditional, Use Permit for the above' Lzoriing, The, motion Was. seconded by. Comm. - Head. Motion *carried. unanimously. ,ADJQURNMENTc There, bieing-no' -further" business, the - meeting adjoux-ed, at 11.-A0 p,m. Att Chairman 0