HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/04/1978sa.0
"REGULAR. MEETING APRIL 4, 1978
CITY COUNG'IL" CHAMBERS 7 a'30 P.M
CTTY`.,HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA' '
1 a-
The ;Planning, Commission .encour -ages, applicants or.:their representative. to be
;ava l_able a ; t.the meetzrigs .to._.answer..,questions, so-that" no agenda items need
be deferred to a later date due to a lack of pertinent infoibation.
PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TQ THE. FLAG:
ROLL CALL: Comm'. Balshaw Hoffman Horciza Lav_in
Shearer Waite
STAFF: Ronald F. Hall;, Planning.,Dir.ector..
APPROVAL OF MINUTES`:: .
CORRESPONDENCE-j:
CONSENT CALENDAR,:, "
Items appearing on the..Consen.t:;'Calend'ar will .b`e-- considered to _be r,outine..by the
Planning co mmi ssLon and w ll_'be : enacted. "b;y' one mo,t. on,. There will: be 'no 'sep'arate
.discussion, of these_i.tems. If.discussion is desired ,r.thaa,t. item ,(;ors items) will
be removed. =from the, Consent .Calendar.
KEEGAN & .COPPIP; E.:I,,Q. Evaluation .,and . Site Design Review of
•
a- proposed light industrial building to be
located at the southeast corner- of Holm Road.
and Ross Sffeet.
AMENhAENT TO ZONING'
ORDINANCE 1072' .N;. C.,5.'- r: TO EE RESCHEDULEp +,
DEDICATION OF -STREET'
RIGHT -,OF -WAY ::
(continued)
x i 4•r .J f..
PETAL LANNTNGf,COMMISSION APRIL 4, 19T8 AGENDA. ..
LJOY WEBS= /DENM9N:'FLAT
P.ROPERT:IES -E.1 Q
_ EVALUAT ION / PREZONI,NG:... ,
FROM COUNTY BT5. TO C.4
HIGHWAY - ,'COMMER'CTAL AND: ,. .
M L, LIGHT` INDUSTRIAL`:
CHRIS:TENSEN & FOSTER-
E I.�Q EVALUATION/
REZONING FROM M -L (LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL TO:P.UD_(P:LANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT:'
QANTAS DEVELOPMENT, CORP .,
PRE EZONING FROM COUNTY ' ° 'A "'
TO CITY PCD (PLANNED
COMMUNITY STRICT)
(corit'nued')
Public_.,Hearing- :.to_-evaluate the_ Environmental
Imp`act'. a -proposed. prezonirig
of sth:e properay. .located•. on, Old: Redwood Highway
opposite Nor- .th�McD.'o-well'Blvd
'Pubalic...Hearing. - .to. consider an application to,
pr:ezone t -he. •above_ property from County
.Agr ,cultur ; B:�S (`l z'. iac -re minimum) ' to C -H
'Highcaay- Commercial land «M_h' Light Industrial.
Public. ,Hearing; to evaluate' Ft he Environmental
Impact. 'Questionnaire °for' a. `proposed`. rezoning of
the property located :on the southeast corner
of Lakeville Hghway:'and Petroleum Avenue..
,Public Hearing to consider an application to
rezone the above property from`M -L (Light
Ind'ustridl) to PUD' (Planned 'Unit Development')
2,
1.
2 ..
Public. Hear i°ng, to consider the 'p,roposed prezonirig
request' of approximately '74.5: acre's;-from. County
Ag'ricu'ltural to City PCD {Planned Cominun fy -LW�.
`District) "located ° on the port -W est. side -of Ely
B3vd North near Lynch Creek.
WASHINGTON 'PROFESSIONAL ;Public Hearing to consider the proposed ',rezoxng
PARK- EXTENSION " 'OF C -0 extension of E -O (Of fice'-,Commercial Distr ct') for=
(OFFICE 01 ER61AL the Washington Professional Park- located, at! the
DISTRICT)•: - sou b6ast corner of - Washington. Street - and=. Ely -Blvd .S;
JOHN' ,A'::. BERNARD:I'.-
COUNTY._REFERRAL� .
FOR ..A USE. CL EICATION:
ADJOURNMENT : -
Hearing to discuss a proposed. indus,trial develop-
meri't.,. to�'be . located -at 'the' southern _corner of
Bodega Avenue and Cleeeland
FA
MINUTES
PETALUMA.TLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 1978
REGULAR MEETING 7 :30 P.M..
;,.
CITY COUNCTL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
PRESENT: Comm.,. o BdIl saw Hoffman, Horciza, Shearer, Waite
ABSENT; Comm., Lavin,.
= STAFF: Ronald; F. Hall, Planning, ;Director
APPROVAL, OF MINUTES : The' _minutes of the. meeting, of March, 21, 1978, were
approved as submitted.,
CORRESPONDENCE It. was the 'consensus, that -the Zoning Administrator
Planning_Director) may grant a fence'permi "t to provide
that the
top of fences and .walls .located in A, C - -H, M -L and M -G Districts may
b,e ;improved with amaxmum - -of one (1) vertic .foot of: barbed wiring, 'provided
"
that. e served includes the - outdoor storage of ,goods or vehicles or 'keep
:
in g t t us
'Of livestock. ;
CQNSENT" CALENDAR
KEEGAN: � &
CO.PPIN 'The motion was made by °Comm, , BorciZa' seconded by Comm.
" ' Sti'earer to .approve; Ltem L. .Motion was carried unan_-
•Agenda Item 1.,. Keegan & Coppiq,. Negative Declaration and Site-Design
Res_ 'I. Res,. '5,.531 approving a .light industrial building to be
Toca,ted. at . the southeast corner of Holm Road . and. Ross
Street
LUCY' - WEBB /PENMAN FLAT Mr. Hdll explained the 'r-eques`t by Lucy Webb, represent-
PROPERT_IES E.;L..Q,. ing the Denman :Flat :Properties,. "to pre"zone Parcel 10
EVALUATION /IPREZONING and the 600 foot frontage of; Parcel 13 ••from County
FROM 00UNTY"B -5 TO & - H ', B 7;5 ( - l z' acre minimum) to C =H, . (Highway
(•HIGHWAY COMMERICAL') Comme'rcral) and M =L,; (Light:Industrial)" located on'th'e
AND M -L,, .(LIGHT " east side of, 01 Redwood Highway' opposite North McDowell
INDUSTRIAL)-; Blvd,
P P y PP
The ro ert is a roximately' 25 'and triangular 'shaped;-,Parcel, 10 ng
23 .79 acres.;. and P.arcei, 13, 1;.61 acres ;in, size. ' ;The. applicant intends to build
an._.industria•l and service" commercial center to -provide commercial, indus =trial .
and. recreationAl facilities to serve, north Petaluma,. A. letter from the State .
Department of: Transportat ion, :ex.p'ressed. concern - regarding the' effect the pre -
�. zoning would, have on the? adj;acent,'s•treets, the state: 'highway, and also that the
property should be .deuel`oped in, conjiinction with- other developments in the
area.
The Public Hearing to consider'`the E'nvironmental'Imp'aci Questionnaire was
opened. No comments were, offered from the! and. the Public - Bearing was"
closed.
Petaluma City Paanning Commission Minutes; °April 4,. 1978. ,;:
-
'Comm. Hotciz;a " agreed that. a• ;supp'lement`al EIQ should, be 'prepared at the time of,
-W .
Use Permit or Site Design 'Review on a specific ' development plan:. -,Lucy,. Webb.
explained , that- William_ Jonas is the owner :of, th`e,' property
Comm.;Horc z_a.moved' to. direct the -Planning'Director to prepare and ,post'a Neg-,
" five Declaration for tt'e project., The motion, was seconded ,by (*m. - Shearer.
The motion carried with 4 affirmative_ "and 1 abstained voce
.`The Public Hearing was opened to, consider. the "prop "os'ed. C -H, (Highway C'ommercial:)
Gild M -L, ,(bight. ndus'trial•)� prezon ng:, ' No comments , were offered, from .:the
.,..audience and the' Public Hearing was closed,,:
�C'omm -' Horciza moved to "recommend. . ,approval of .the regdbs ted, C H ':(High, Comm
ercial) an& M L; (Light. Industrial) prezoning wi -th the specific ;conditions as
,- stated "in Exhibit B. The motion,:was seconded by Comm .Shearer.; The. motion
carried, with .'S .affirmat.ive, - 1 abstained vo:t�e..
CHRISTENSEN '& FOSTER Mr Halt_ explained the.requesa by Christensen & `Foster
E ; I Q. EVALUATION " / representing ,the jndi.an Creek Properties to, rezone 5.46
:REZONING' FROM ;M-4L - acres from M=L, ( 1ight" -Indus'irial)`_'t6'•P:1jD. (.P'lanned' Unit
(LIGHT' INDUSTRIAL). - Development located at' °the 'southerly corner of Lake
;`,TO PUD.' (PLANNED° :` vil "le H_ ,ghway and Petroleum Avenue. The app c t is:
UNIT DEVELOPMENT) regaest ng a�PUD - ozoning= for the following uses
A_ All uses allowed" in th'e,Light Industrial;District, including principal
uses, ra:ec,essory uses and.conditonal uses. -
B. S,pec-Ic accessory uses . as follows
,= Marihel storage and service,,. accesspr,ies "and sales x
Wholesale, ;and retail °sales of all ,automotive parts and at - �
Wholesale and retail sales and repair, of; .all modes of surface :•personal
transport"atonin' addition to automobiles.
c v >
r
- 'Wholesale. and r.e,iaiI sale goods, -.,:machinery': °tools accessory' "to,, uses
F
permit;ted,'under Light Industrial Zoning h
r Y 1
p, n approved and`'" there had' been, con ,
Comm BalshaV ex ained the_M L -use had b,ee
siderab.le,.discussion, as the:r P.,ind cafes ih'e d'ef'inite, termination, r of the C H '
type u s e ' s a fi Petroleum, Avenue ;:Specific comments were made to` =the applicant' ,
indica,ti"ng, he : could not continue :with- -fhese uses. It was".`detergdned that
3 ='
Highway Commercial uses would .cease at Pe`txoleum : Avenue:: Mr. "Ha1T stated it
had been determined 'that the M -L; District 'should, not be ,changed to,aIlow for
, ':tlat
Hi hwa ", Commercial ,us "e at . least; unlimited• Highway 'Commercial use and.
g y:
3
... x
Petroleum Avenue, should - be :'the line !of demarcation ,;tzetween, Highway "'Commercial
and L gh _Industrial., The 'uses `had been, 'am ende_Id t6 a11ow for those uses .that .:
"t
r ". are considered satellite 'to }al'uses. There is a:,
Zoning `Ordinance that allows •:for' a Pilanned Unit. Deve °lopment Tlie intent Is-,to
- allow ;f or satellite uses in an M -L District under PUD rezoning.
Comm: Balshaw stated Section. 14. =406` of the Zoning O; rdinarice'indica,tes` that
: certain things within an M -L Distric-t,. are' "perm "tted for' the use of the,. person
M
Z__
Petaluma ,City Plane •ng Commission- Minutes April A, 1978
in that dist °Retail sales and repair'of• goods would be - directed' -at. the
general. public-. This appears to be a subterfuge to extend -C -H "zoning further
along past . terminus. It should only 'be° s`ervic'es related-:to rfaci;lities in*
an M =L ' ,a:ke. Comm: Shearer questioned if `an M L is the' overriding district and
,.
the'PUD is within that district Comm Balshaw explained tl;e ordinance reads -' i'l
that' on' when' part
of a Planned Unit Distric -t, retail; commercial, and off to
uses are, necessary 'to s'er permitted uses, in the M L Dstt-i'ct. Coipm. Shea -rer
felt this, wa's a logical ° ,to se rvice boats as:' it `is" adjacent to the Marina'
and 'that there also seems to' be 'spot zoriirng in that area °Comm." Balsh" aw' stated f
that each' of.' :us.es should be F§upp'or:ted . Comm: "Horc za "stated if we iA
approving' a specific plan, r those, are the specific! uses=•we -are 'approving,. I,t.• s
the . potential that would,"charige the rez:oAing ;, and one of the 'biggest problems
- :o
was traff - fc.
Mr. Hall,. explained ,that an ,M--L Distric includes th'e •manufacture -of electric"
and electronic instruments and dpy pes,,such as te- levis'lon, ; radio and phono-
graph equipment, - and public''°and quasi public corpora ion yards.. Comm. Bal'shaw
stated a,'retail auto+ parts sales is not addressing. thee= Zoning Ot.diriance. If we
are serving the area ands the personnel "n that area this is • fine;, ° but If' it is
a way to' 'extend the `C H 'then he was op 'to the proposal : Comm Hoffman
asked if' it was' the developer* s resp.ons bili'ty 1to develop ;the ,highway 'frontage,
how this sffec +t those parcel's on Petrb - Peum Avenue' }that are -not a part of
this proposal? Mr Half, explained that none of -the .Owners of the smaller
parcels, .have been' able ` "to put- together a development phan that is required'
under a PUD',' so they cannot be accommodated this .zrezon -ing . Mr. Hargis
'Ass City',Eng neer', explained the City could; =ask '.the developers' to do "-the
improvements across'th :f
e:ront'age from -Lake vit11e fi± ghway'do.wn to th•e driveway;
thee
concept being that 'there ?;is `a need •to b&' able'•'ao move back and forth along
the • road,; so they 'cotil'd end 'up doing , th'e imp' "s' the other peoples'
frontage.. `He added' the 'plan shows' the `improvements being 'd'one across the-other
properties:... . ,
The. Public Hearing to consider they' Env 'ronmerital Imp °act Que's•tionnaire was
opened , Haro;ld Teitler, 1343 43rd Avenue, San 'FrAnc' sco, owner of P'arc"e'1 06
and 08, stated that strong cbnsi`dreration should be given to, 'noise pollution,
traffic.and ' 'a nuisance factor`with`a large development:, ."There . spot zoning.
With the f'utu`re potential of a recreational , a'rea,:.- consi'derat =ion shou -ld' be given
to a future recreational' use; this be° a highdir a6d better ruse The
PubY'ic' Hearing was 9 61ose`d;.
Comm Horci•za. •stated that as ffar as t-he environmental :impact is concerned -we
are `not , aggravating the situation' by approving lthi particular project
Comm Hbr -ciza moved to direct the 'P'lanning ;:Director to prepare and po,st'. a
Negative D "e� "ration The mot1onwas
or the ,pro3ect �. seconded by Comm.:- Shearer..
Th'e motion ca 4 affirmative, 1 absent and 1 •abstain .vote.
. .
Chris Christensen of Christensen &Foster, explained that some °of these • proper -
'
ties •would have retail �sales+';uses; He , ,was .made .to-•believe ..that -f they changed
to• H'Ai hway Commercial, t they could 1ave those. "things" they' wanted. in
rela•tion to retail' use,."and''as 'a r;esul't it- hey requested ;a rezoning to :H'ighway
Commerc a -1,. The though',t being,,: that ; if there was a--.quasi-retail use related' ,to;.
wholesale;, .the result would b:e 50 %' %whoaesal2 Nand -5'.0% retail.;. He vindicated' they
wear -:e trying to secure 'zoning`to develop this °facility. '' .He stated,
they. want a
Petaluma, City Plant.ing, Commission Minute's, April 4, 1.97 . 8
zoning clesIgpation which will permit them to ut the uses they
need.
Edward Foster of Christensen & Foster stated. rhey,.are asking f'o'r, the
uses that
are, shown on the deverlopm ; such as �intubator' w c include.
an .office and tQi,'ldt facl t a Apinobile.-repai-r .service ;and,,bQdy repair, and
addition - here would e ;sdppJi6rs -of these - parts that wou1d .i
in add -on �to, - thi� nt o:
these automotive' uses and oth within' th6 1
ptqr�k 1tgeln in , Addion i t
because Hof the h'aat. 1dun!c g; fa c ili ties, 7 'it �seemed; ; 1,6gica:1 to. provide a facili-
.
t f'"Ot, boat, service,, storage ,and sa1ds , It was his und'erst.arfdin;g tha:t= a,Puh •
would b,e more .feasible as °th&. ' and- if ,any other
qs,es to come � in - th ey -
- would have t- get a
Us e Permit for anything other'. than '.,tha which is shown the pan. Comm..
Waite explained th&PUb 'would hav'e. to. be amended, . �as .,you cannot-. get a Us,e
Permit under 'the Pn. . Mr.'. Te1tj-.e-iE stated if . Seci-i8n
.- , rljm I .. , -, 1 t -A ;*s included he would
.l -to �be,'includ in the' Chris Foster PUD. Mr., Hall ihdicdted' that..'.
if the Christensen.I.& Foster property - i s. appxo'ye'd =f or a PUIJ there . be :no
pObleiti 'if a s&c ic proposal
p f" 'is'§ubmitted' by Mr,.� - Tetitler, for. his property to
:,..
be a,pp.r.6,ved for. a PUD The Public Wearing was closed-r
Comm. Bal-shaw was conc'erne'd `that this prpp,osal :was aflo-ther. - way , of.'converting
this area to in fact,, -without generating it as esuch. He.
stated we•do ngt nowhave 4nythirig" 'fhe yeast side of ; L - ak6vflle -fti hway -Where-
-9, "
in you-could. drop In with less• thAq, '4 $1 ' and, make a purcha'se.- We don
haVe dU m iVe sales and trailer' sales b' t •nothing that casual
-attract's the l '
- V o __t . 1 1 . ._.. u
customer,, -and, thi's is the difference in the, devel'opmetit of, Lakevi-l-fe ,Highw
. .. 1 .. ; I g. 7,
versus, Petaluma 'Blvd,.- in :town., or L'akeville bot-,,ween the fxeeway and '"b". Street.
We ar e t' ' stqp2 'and, ,th "s the difference as * stores are not. to 'be .
gpnp�ra, i4g
generated on Lakeville Highway. '`Comm. ShE4te'r 'this: was a goqd -place to
have an r. I t would also keep some-of the traffic out -of town,i
S st At- d- t his particular p was app,f qp,riate, -fo this site -: d
1. Comm 1- 1 - 1 1 1 -_ 9 ., _1 - an-
a PUD,would.take care, of! the concerns in that , the use -would chang'e: whe the
zoning was changed.,, 'Orc.i"za �stated actually y the uses: that are
ind'icat'ed would b,� support'iv'e>.Z'6f�. the lar& -indust rial. users such as the.'sa1e
of tools 'and, m'ach1n&ry_'; lt'19 - morev4lifdusltrially oriented,. It would be; d1fft-
cult to .maintain this "type of ljse over the . r h. c i w e y er; si , m I ilar - uses, - d'o tend
to C1 together.- Perha p s, w&-do hav'el a need fbr these use's in Petaluma. as,
it is; a' growing are I a:, Since 1 1i. is in 'close •proximity' t- - the watrer recrea-tional
area; .there will b :a. - growth of these , of stores. Comn Hoffman felt' thq�t.
- r osed' 'incubator , wecrehous'-i g was an excel Lent idea,, but that the property
'
should be zoned 'Within the-proper zone and-not:PUD. 'Comm, Waite - explained than
the Commission triedto-rezone'ihe property from M- to C-H ' (Alghwdy ,, Cbrnm,er-
cial') because, of the,-rela:tea sa - ate not.-a1lowed in •an M=L zone . now
they xqe-r trying to rezone the: 'under �a PUDj, - to - incorp6rate the , speci�
fted.uses-i He added the only, .other 41ternative-vould- b tD split th -. -y., - • ,
e 1 .prop 11. e�rl� .
in half and zone a portion in, and a ppttim in H. Mt.,' Hall stated, using
the rational that i ,the,,. main ' . M-Li why not allow 'th
p'top-erty were to., re ose:
permitted use&'tfiat - are', allowed, -in anM-L District,. If the - C.Ommisa
iaft al-l .
all th6 permii-red uses - under M it would , .g ive : more flexibility- and it might
permit the ; property more - towaHs, the industrial 'Use and p:erpetuate that kind of
use rather than.the-reiail sa Mr `Hall stated. the deVe1bpqr
some , flek and suggested, amend1fig: , th , e PUR report to -aClIo f'or. permitted
M-L principle: uses.., Comm. Hoxciza staid'd with th'& 'of a. Marina, And if
there is ;a need- Ear -, set -_ y1&es - j h& "did :not s' e,tbo much. , wrong with the
propOsa1,. Comm: Ba"Isbaw stated - -permitted usea'are the. Uses under
M-L. Under, C -H t he U's e 9, are only " those that are 1s fed,
Comm. Shearer - ,MoviE4 to recommend : ap of the " re tUD I the
q re zoning to
City.Councfl -with the z:pecific findings• as stated' in Exhibit B with "the .
-
ing change. , lhe was s econded by Cbmm. Horc i . za.,
i
Petaluma ;,'City P1 arming ,Commission Minutes, Ap.ril 4, 197`8' .
Condition 2 ^add All ermined 'f uses allowed in the :Light Industrial
p
�• tract., exclud -in g conditional uses
Condition 3 add All items lis -t'ed in staff "report, 'under R with the follow=
irig; change - Wholesale -,and r.e .,sale• of goods., machinery and tools .accessory
to 'the permit ted pr ncipae uses a'l owed' `in -L b s4trict".
3 affirmative,, 2 negative, 1 absent vote The motion failed; for the lack of
r tfiel required- affirmative votes to 'carry `a rezoning'` change:
` -;
QANTAS DEVELOPMENT 'Mr Hall explained "the r.equest'of Qaht'as Development to.
CORP PRE
ZONING FROM consider an zapplicaton to prez'one approximately 74.5
COUNTY "A" TO ``CITY "" acres from''County "A , Agra cdltur.e to City PCD (Planned
PCD' '('PLAi_NED Community DIstri "ct) "to al.l'ow, for 21`7 singl'e= family
COMMUNITY.,DISTRICT):': residential units, 2'20 multifamily "units and an elemen-
„t`ary school site- to. °be <locate'&-on the no'rthwesf side of
Ely .Blvd`. North near Lynch Creek. The area would
.- _ .
intludei'the ex'tensions'of Maria Drive and Rainier Avenue Access to, the 74.5'
acre development„ would be progided 'by' Rainier Avenue- .of'f. of North McDowelh,
Maria Drive and Ely „Blvd, Nort -h A letter had been received'from the- a0ld.Ado:be
Union School District indicating it�is to have school ,sites .
located ad to.�park s and that they were des rou of Having 10 acres:
set aside:in• the upper northeast section of this development for school use
Mr. Ha'lliexplaned: that.'t is the C,ity's: policy •that schools be - comb'in°ed .with a
Park site for unct'i�onal' compati.bili.ty and %an.' elementary school 'riot be'
.f
located near an arterial: street 'The Board of T'rustees'.is•in complete, opp:o
siton to City, policy:
Comm Shearer ,commented''that if':youngsters have to,cross an arterial s'tr.eet,
sooner or later street signs and crosswalks will be warranted in which case - you
are not avoiding the prokem by placing the _' schooa in the center of the de
velopmen`t. Comm Horciza st&te& ;that' if the °,airport• failed' or, closed down, the
,,.
not of site east of Ely could be a ,potential: Mr.. Joshyn stated the FAA does
school s
'a school within the realm..of an exis,tirig airport and recommended 'their
r, y Y s ossble
N p
bu l:din � be located as',;far awa f:r -om E�l a' y
g ,
The Pub1 c.'Hearing was reopened to co•,nsi,der the proposed Planned Community
District,,rezo "ning:
Jon Josl
yn, developer, stated,. the school -_ district voiced their objection to, the
ocation The City Cb ncil"is willing
school l to meet with the school district
in an open session to di'scusst the school p.rob'lem: We'° have taken our "stand" and.
that' is that LAFCO indicated that in a case`'' like thi "s' they have to back the
City ; as they are tie lead agency _- ,All avenues to ;resolve the problem 'hare `been
exhausted' and' 'it is, time � to d'o s'ometh'ing Comm,. Shearer , started , the-Old Adobe
School Bbard has . changed their,`'' po l i cy or position, but perh'ap's .they will
meet with, the Cify °'Council :'.and discuss: the• problem•:
She - aske
d if. this site -was not used for a school, .would' ,the- developer be will-
ing to us,e, It as a. park site,? Mr.: Joslyn stated itt is to have a 15 acre
park, but by the ,same token it ?isf tnot r that fa away from a 40' acre park. The
P
Park Department does feel they can,`'maint=ain. t: ,- and they do •not, as .a `matter of
principle, want a. 15 acre park Comm: Shearer stated this was not- her understand'-
ing in talking with the'Parks It :wa's "her uride.rstanding that a park
Petaluma City Planning ,Commiss on_ Minutes, April, 4, 1978
could, be develop : ed .with, `bedroom -taxes that would `be 'available to them and' that
• ,large -paik site., maybe ;not _1'5 acres,, .`was needed because this would ;be more. of
• residential park. This park wouldaserve; -the day to -;day needs of;'the 93'4;
fa'mi'lies; in the development.: Mr Jo,sly,n explained their `lot's 'were - not small
lots, 'but averaged ;7,400`: square. feet Another' consideratgri` would be the co ;t
r t
.the street and who would pay for the ++ 1/'2' sire -et improvement ,co ,ts around f�he
park Comm , 'Shear,`er' stated she, would 1 "ike •the 'commiss' on •to address, ; t • se t to
the issue of park 'land .versus:: the in lieu fees based on a_s`s;e "ssed valuation so
that a builder or `developer 'of any_ number 'o£` un -its •wihl, "contrib "ute a 'like .
amount of doll`ars', towards parks and that the" Commission should study . 'the issue:
and make a recommendation to the City Council, Mr Jq_slyn explained that... if
his application for PCD.was' approved' t'o include•a.par;>and' a sehool" site,; there
then be, a prezoning for' th ° e, additional parc'e1;', Unit I,I has an approved
Tentative Map" which takes in `the •park 'onlyo Unit," III, woukld' be next year`s ;
project, and :f will to _be addressed .a "s to whether it^will'be r:e "served as a
school`s'l e or mod 'fied'as 'a-park site ta
If the schoo;fi district does riot e_xerc:i,se the option to ;acquire the reserved
Land, the dev.elop,e_r -in, turn *..asks - the 'C. i -ty to, designate the land ;for. some other
use.
Comm,, Shearer did not feel the park site w,a's adequate 'for th °e ,total d'euelopment
and the scho.oa site had no -,t b'een' thrashed out,, and further that it- was unrealis-
tic to' ask a .developer 't_o desigfia a• ;l5 ac'r'e . 'ark site. and 'a 10 :acre school
site: Comm. Balshaw asked if part, of the:-condition of , approval could,, .be the
equivalent land value? He • stated_the 'C;ity is developing• impact .whereby each
;developer wil'1 pay`theiyr proportionate share' of an impact, i.e.,, of . a traffic
signal, a s,t widening or a park. ;Comm; Shearer wanted assurance ihat.,if -
the land' is riot used as •a school site it would be , used as a park, sit Mr:,
J`oslyn "; statedd he could riot give that assurance, but: the •C'ouncil ,could. Comm.
Balshaw•. asked ` as a• cbndition of. this development',- there would be a, school ..
designated and a dollar. ;value equ' aa fo the assessed value of.` that sehool.,' site,
provided to. the,C "ty for . purchase of. community park.land•., Mr Joslyn aid_ <_no,,
as - now , they were 'e "stab ishing hand use: 'and. nothfng� more and you cannon get ;tied. .1 1 down to .a particular land use. Comm. Ba`l•shaw explained the..-land has' twos
po,tentia1 uses, it could 'be a -dedicated park or can be set, a'sid'e ;for, schools
If it is ' dedicated' park:,' you have •lost ,the -•use .of the. land.. If it, is a
dedicated: school s•i;te• 'and the schools 46 snot `wane_ 4:6 exerci 4e the, r op'tion,;.
maybe the City can, require it: a , - s ;park lands and maybe..-we can't., - •If ;we accept
the 5 acre park and - the school .bu 'lds on the, school °sit`e,, the Ci.t•y" i's out
about .9 acres of L park and; the in-lieu fees ' a'lso.' Mr, Joslyq stated he is no;t
ab's'olve "d: from .his obligation-as ; tie still pays. the fix 1 -fn -lieu fees for every
r ' . . . . ..
foot he _s short of acreage The Public "Hearing was closed.
Comm Horciza moved to .r-.ecommen.0 approval of the 'reque's`ted, PC (.P'lanned Comm -,
unity',. Dist "riot) to the Gity Council, with the; specific - find -ngs, as stated in
Exhibit B TYre�ano.tion' ,was seconded" by 'Comm!. Balshaw; "
3 affirmative, :1 :negative, l absent, 1 abst =aine'd voie.. 'Thee emotion failed, for
the lack .of the- required affirmative votes to -carry a ;rezoning thange,.
WASHINGTON PRO F ; ESSIONAL Mr Hall explained The- request to consider th, commer
PARK EXTENSION OF 'C -0 r ciaL zoning des °.ignation 'fort th'e. Washington ,Professional
(;OFFICE -`COMMERCIAI. - -Park at the south_ea's,t corner, of East Wash%ngtori
DISTRICT) . .' Street and, - El,y Blvd. The, General .,Plain designation, for
-6-
Petaluma City Planning :Commission ,:Minutes April 4, 1978
p p
the ro erty is Trans and the Environmental Design Plan designation is
Office Commercial. The.Washington Professional Park was granted a'rezoning on
�. June 3,..1974: The 30 -month time limit elapsed on December- 3, 1976, and no
activity`"occur.red.; The:,developers requested ;a one- year extension and were:
granted'the extension on May 10, 1,937, based on delays with the relocation of
Hillcres't Hospital,. After one year another request `taaa received for an
additional one -year extension.,
The Public Hearing was :opened "to consider the proposed C -O (Office Commercial
District) 'extension. Dick 'Lieb,' Lieb & Quaresma„ explained the delay was
because .of the _situation and the reason the - p`ro`pert "y.was still up in
the U a permanent.zoning,.is °granted', no•more extension would be re-
geed.
Comm Salshaw stated when an applicant comes in with a'requ they should have
a plan to do something ,within _a reasonable `length of time. It has been four
years and nothing has been. done with the property. He would like to rezone the
property -back to R- 1- 6,;500 and put the. monkey,.on the developer's back,. Comm.
Horciza - stated that in order to give the Zoning Ord some teeth we should
revert the, property back fo its present zoning. The ';Pub'lic "Hearing was closed..
Comm. Shearer:'stated the. "property should revert back to the original zoning,, R
1-6,500 She did. not disagree the use, but would, like to see a
tional use there also.
Comm: - Shearer moved to recommend denial, of the "requested C -O' (0ff'ice Commercial
District) rezoning. extension; that the, property, be reverted 'back to its ori-
ginal zoning c.lassific`a;t'ion of R -i -6 5 o "and the Environmental Design Plan be
amended these - parcels from Office Commercial to Urban, Lbw Density Resi-
dentiall,.and, further, that park d'edication.;provisions be provided of 1.5 acres
per 100f;units or in lieu, fees as a condition-.of - Tentative 'Map on the property.
The.mo,tion was seconded by Comm. Horciza. -The motion carried with 5 affirmative
and 1 abstained vote..
JOHN A BERNARDI The applicant °;requested that.due to illness in the
COUNTY REFERRAL FOR R - A ''"family his application be-rescheduled.
USE °CLARIFICATION;`
,.
STUDY" SE
SSIONs It was the' consensus that- the 4th Tuesday of. each''month
be set aside for a Planning Commission Study Session
ADJOURNANT: There being no.fur•ther business_,, the meeting adjourned
at 1,1:35 p.m.
Attest �'' _?... ....
Chairman