Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/03/1976A G E N D A • PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 'CITY HALL The Planning Commission encourages applicants or their available at the meetings to answer questions,, so that deferred to a later date due to a lack of pertinent in FEBRUARY 3, 1976 7:30 P.M. P.ETALUMA, CALIFORNIA representatives to be no agenda items need be Eormation. PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. ROLL CALL Comm. Bond Head Hil- ligoss Horciza Popp Waters Wright STAFF: Dennis Boehlje, Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE QANTAS DEVELOPMENT Public Hearing to consider a revised site plan submitted CORPORATION - by Qantas Development Corporation for the prezoning of PREZONING'Z3 -76: approximately 107 acres located on the east side of North McDowell Boulevard adjacent to Lucchesi Park from `:. a County Agricultural District to .a Planned Community District:. `BODEGA AVENUE /PAULA 1. Public Hearing to evaluate the Environmental Impact LANE STUDY. AREA: Questionnaire for the proposed rezoning.and pre- " zoning of the. .Bode g a. area. 2. Public Hearing to consider 'the.rezoning and pre- zoning of the Bodega Avenue /Paula Lane area to an R -1- 10,000 District for the portions closest to Bode g a Avenue, and to an R -1- 20,000 District :for the portion closest to West Street, - SONOMA COUNTY. Consideration of. e hand � a olic. r.e ardin �th � � policy g� g handling :of REFERRALS Sonoma County referrals: ADJOURNMENT n . r . f � i M -1 'N U =_T_ g TALUMA'61TY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3, 1976 * GULAR MEETING 7.30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS; CITY"HALL P.ETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm. Bond, Head' *, Hilligoss, Horcza Waters, Wright * Coomm. Head departed at 9.4 °5 ABSENT: • None STAFF: Dennis Boehlje, Planning Director•. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: CORRESPONDENCE.; QANTAS DEVELOPMENT C RPORATION ONING Z s,. of; January 29,, 1 were approved with the exception e th" p ragraph on.' Pa e hould r The minute 976 that tYi�i �rd � a� � n g �7 s read, "Comm.. Hilligoss clarified! th at, , Federal', funds may ":::be: available. , for a public safety building, " i Mr. .B'o J q ssoners besides Comm. Head• would e be ue a ���ioned if, an y of the�.Commi i� �, 'ending the ABAG•,`Conference`. relating to seismic safety Comm Wr stated 'he might possibly attend, but would prefer not to register. in 'advance r Mf. Boehlj 'br.iefly reviewed the. staff re,por >t regarding the revised site plan- .submitted. by - Qantas Development Corporation for the prezonin of approximately :107 acres on North McDowell Blvd. adjacent ta Park from a County Agricultural District to a Planned Community District. He explained that the new proposal realigned Maria.Drive onto ; tfie , -subj,ect property and relocated the multi = family, portion of the PCD:to the southern edge of the property bordering on Lucchesi Park Boehlje then explained . the phasing "and indicated the location of the day care center. He also Informed the Commis'sionuthat the developer was requesting �!, the City Council , to delete the 19" low-co, houses from the pro - jiect'b'e.cAu e"of economic reasons Comm. Waters stated that the ,project had-been altered considerably from�the design that had been reviewed! by the Residential Development Evaluation Board. He questioned if 'th'e application °was therefore still valid, since the Board''ha'd..ranked the proj;ect. in accordance with the prior design. Mr..`Boehlje replied.that the City Counci.l,would have to decide if the application was valid as far as , - the elimination of low- income housing is concerned.. He informed the Commission that at' the time the applicant received the allocation., Mr,. Joslyn had expressed doubt to the City Council. as to whether' -he could build the '19 low -cost town houses. The City 'Council "had, informed the developer at' that time that they did not.wish to change the allotment ut requested t w -cost houses appa,lProceed and attempt to build -the to nd la 'te' r defer to the City Council if problems arose. Bo advised the Commission that the -project without the low- st houses still rated higher than. thed"next contending development. L A � � Petaluma,City Planning Commission Minutes,, February 3, 1976 Comm. Waters referred to the reduction in o - pen, space, and as to whether the Resi.d:ential..Development Evaluation ;Board would have considered it 'to be feasible., Mr. Boehlje replied that' the open space prop':osed. still. met the City's requirements. He also stated that at the time of consider by• the Board concet,n had been vo as to whether the linear park along the fringe border was actually desirable. Hr. Boehlje further_ advised that the pro- posed plan called for more private open space in the mu.lti family area, but eliminated, some ' the public land, for dedication. He clarified that'the -r& would not be an increase in units for the " r,o'ect and: therefore, the same amount p � y unt 9f open space would be retained. . It was also clarified that the allotment evaluation is 'preliminary and, many cha.nges.I 4lans may be necessary as.'they go through,, various processes. Comm. Head stated that at the • last meeting .1 discussion had been held with regard to informing the developer- what wAs in. the .way of streets He referred - to ,Section, ,22.. 4.902'. of , the Subdivision- Ordinance that states -:'The City Engineer shall prepare a wr,i'tten "report' of, recommendations �on the tentative map in relation to the public improvement. requirements of this ordi- nance and the provisions of the Map Act sand asked if this p J p Section had been complied with. Mr. Boehl':e-ex lained that the tentative map process-was still several. months away,, _s p; < g, te. design 'ievews,, and,: rezon >in an ­1 PUD'rezonngs and s :preliminary subdivision map considerations all came. prior to the - ;submitta.l of `the tent,at:ive.map;,. Comm. Head questioned why such a 'detailed map, had been submitted.. if the Commission was,only.to consider rezonin g. A'Ir,. Boehlje replied that the zoning ,require- merits fora Planned Community District included ,the° indication of general land uses, the,general circulation system, and th& location of the general park areas.. Chairman Hgrciza, stated he had served on the.. Res idential.;D'evelop- ment Evaluation Board and:fe.lt that, the low -cost. housing factor played an- important.:p`art • in reviewing, of the various developments • accordin the _specified criteria. He. stated he was disap- pointed to. see these units being ;eliminated,,- and ,suggested that perhaps -a comment should be passed to •the City ,Council for their consideration of this project, since he felt the low -cost housing factor entered into the ranking of the project. Mr. Joslyn informed the Commission tl%at ,in comparing the project including the low -cost . housing against the:'proj,ect without this type of housing, :if� • the ,points awarded for the addition of the low -cost housing were deleted f -rom these pr, oposals, tl ;e project since it had been considered to - non- low- cost. housing project, with, the, most : ornts would •be t he; be a' better ro osal. The public hear;ing`was opened.: Barbara Lind a member 'of the 1975 -.76. Residential . Developmen:t..Evaluation Board, informed the Commission the Board awarded _the�-lgw -cost - housing points because -2- • • "Housing they, were very - concern . that t'ne l aw= cost eonunitment be followed through, - 'She added that the Board 'was quite concerned when they found o ut that the .lo`w =cost hous'in'g units might be deleted from this particular pr.oject.. Comm:. Bond asked "!'T4r Joslyn why he had decided against the placement of,, di rodd adjacent to a ,Lynch Creek as discussed at the h , last me'eting,,y and,,exp,ressed concern about possible dedication of thai strip park) to' the�'City ,and future maintenance. Mr. Joslyn replied than. the road had (been eli.mi.nated because it was not praat"ic al, and'' would have involved a substantial redesign of the " , area. He also, stated he felt, that the r:el'ocation of the multi- family portion of the development with its',proposed private open space.. would. provide a better .transition between the single - family and multi - family units A discussion of the land along Lynch Creek followed., Mr. Boe-hlje .clarif'ied that a portion of this area would'lave to be d'ed- icated to the Sonoma County Water Agency for maintenance :of the ,cr:eek, . and although there might be addi- tional open space involved, it would riot, necessarily be addi- tional. public .land since the City Council could decide later what they o accept for dedication Comm Bond asked for ampli- placedy . fication what' screening would between the multi- and 1 -111 � g �T y nits. ,. Mr. i' y p, sin te - 'fami lt ��u Josl n ex lam ed how the private open space with the, existing trees, combined with parking areas, would provide a buffer between the single -,and multi- family portions of 1. develTheeelr• He : added that an exact 'design had not been firmed p. evation.of the multi - family bu"id ngs was questioned, and Mr'. Joslyn stated that the on the periphery would be one- story, escalating two - story in the center. Mr. Boehlje asked Mr. Joslyn if'he intended to build the zero sideyard units, on the larger 7,0007'7,,500 foot lots. Mr. Joslyn replied that that. was the intent.,,,.C'omm. Hillgoss ques- tioned .thedifference.betweenthe zero sideya'rd units and the lot units.;. Mr. Josl re lied that th e zero uni.tsa could, .;ran e between 1'000 P ' q nd the g - 1, s quare feet, and the H pn quads' lot units, would, ran e b'etweeri 1,150 - 1,600 square feet. g _ 4 Comm. Hilligoss stated, that she also, had-served on the Resden- r tal Development Evaluation Board and felt that the low -cost housing factor played.:an important part in, the rating system. Sh'e therefore preferred to' see them included, „in the project'. Mr. stated that the building,. , ad :changed so drastically Jos lyn.s. „ fhat,the low- cost housing units were :no 'longer. economical. He added , that the building re%drements, would. have to 'be reduced in order to,furnish low -cost housing.. The public hearing was closed. specif which had been recom- qi „ ' thes, r mendedebyJitheestaffenOtheanalysi ` Planned Community "sfofdg m District prezon'ing. -3- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, February 3, 1976 . BODEGA AVENUE/ PAULA "LANE STUDY AREA: Comm. Waters, moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the prezoning for'the Qantas'Deve.lo.pment Planned Community District, based on the 'four specific 'findings is staged.: The motion was seconded by Comm. Popp. AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 'C'omin. Bond ,stated, that he' .would like to add" 'that the minutes should reflect the fee ling of: the Comm ission ers with regard _:to the, provision of the low -cos -t units,. He stat =ed that= while he appreciated the financial' difficulty 'faced 'the. developer, he also appreciated the difficulty involved..f'or those who need such houses[. He ,added 'that, he felt. it should be expressed as the concensus of the ;Commission I 'that wherever °possible low- income units- should be implemented into the design' -of, this type" ,of development. Comm. Bond reminded tle. Commission,that,.the' pro vision of low=cost housing was one'of the po the En vironmental 'Design Plan., and'' he felt the Commi'ss should goon record as ,standing firm that this type' of'housing,be provided in larger d'evelopments.. A brief discussion followed regarding ;some of the factors that made it economicahy, unfeasible for a developer to provide low - co'st "'units. Comm. Bond stated that low -cost housing was being provided In other communities., and he wondered if more might be , accomplished if the City would spend as much initiative in trying to find away- to implement.low -cost housing 4s a. I policy of the City as they 'spent in trying to excuse'the developer. Comm. Head., referred to Article ;'1'8' of the Zoning , :Ordinance referring to Study Districts, which specified an eight -month period 'to-permit ifiitensive study of ,ap:propriate future =in ng's: He advised -.the. Commis'sion.that in checking the records he had ,noted that this period had expired, and irif- ormed• "the ,C'ommis,sion, they were supposed. to enforce the Zoning Ordinancer'ather than to violate. it. Mr. Boehlje informed Comm. Head that the area never been zoned as a Study District„ and 'therefore the conditions of Article 18 d -id . not apply.. Comm. Head referred to"a staff" report entitled ",Specific Plan Study`of the Bodega Avenue and 'Paula Lane Area," and questioned if the' ;C6m____ssion was legally able to 'act on it once the eight- month period, had expired., Mr.. Bo'ehlj e explained that "s,tudy :area'" was only a ,gener•=c term meaning :that. the area was being .. - g , _ zo � , indicated in the staff re P o� rt dated January 28 19.76, Comm studied and the existin R , f'or the area was. Head insisted that; the report stated 'it was a study ;area, and therefore he felt. a legal decision should be ^.obt a ned.. Chairman °Horciza informed Comm. 'Head he thought the question had been sufficiently answered by `the Planning Director Mr. Boehlj e, ,inf,ormed 'him a legal interpretation would, be that, since "arez;oning to Study District had' never occurred'. the provision's of Article 18; did not app ly, -4- Petaluma C Planning Commission Minutes Februar 3, Comm. Head, asked the Planning Director' by what authority the :Planning Department had "set up, t_he meetings' to study this area, since he could find nothing in the backgro,urid material that gave diem this authority. Mr. Boehlje I advised him that it had been by order of the City' Council. Comm. Head' insisted there was no Planning : ond D ,en'ce in ,t e, material' ie had received which gave the corresp g ,.par- tme'�the m author Chairman Horcza ruled Comm, Head to be out of order, Comm. "'Head thereupon stated he wished the records to reflect that he had been ruled out of order. It Mr. Boehlje. informed the Planning Commission that the City Council had considered seven*prop.osals with regard to the Bodega Avenue area_ and,had decided :upon one, .which had been forwarded in turn t& the Planning Commission,for their review. He then briefly explained the rezoning %prezoning, which had been recom- tative ende'a, stree` y would be' d that ,_the i..plan�s showed ten- .. mended „ y e City Council and a vise t patterns which consi, ere'd at a later date. Comm. Bond,- stated the street layout was drastically different than.previously proposed and asked if it wa:s in fact feasible. Mr.,Boehlj` stated the street system as proposed was necessary because of the higher density that could potentially develop under `this zoning designation, and that staff had tried to 'the , :. - follow the contours of the land,in proposing the street system. He added that : specific. plan for the area mould have to be considered at a later date, „but what had been proposed was basically what would be required for that'type of zoning. Comm, Hnad if there had been a Zoning Committee ommit ee formed to study this`: „area as required. Mt.,,Boehlje replied that no Zoning Committee h °r ... • ad ever been formed., even though it had been allowed in the bylaw's of 'the Planning Commissi;'on. He advised that the property owners had met in informal meetings ,.with the Planning Commission,, and numerous,public hearings had been held. Comm. Head stated he,dd f eel that.any :input had been received from the elected and.-appointed officials of the "City, and the staff report only reflected the input from the civil employees of the City. He went on t state thatsince no,'Zonin.g Committee had. been appointed from, Planning Commission to meet with the. residents of,..the area, he felt"the requirement should be stricken from'the'record if ,it was not t;o,,be upheld. Comm. Popp informed him. that anyahing,the Comm.ission as abody includes the people in the area: because it was realized,,that the Commission represented the people. He went' on.,to say 'he felt in this ease public input had been requested to the maximum degree, since the people had been - notified numerous times. � Comm e rep) ed_that ' ifa sflato y „tpe m eet system would be. 4 Waters uestioned how mand M Boehl e pecific la .',was adopted, it would be specific only to indicate that,a street system would be re- quired in ,the general. area, but,_.actual street lines would be subject to change "as development occurred'.� Chairman Horciza -5- I Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, February 3, 1976 •reminded the Commission that when they had previously approved the compromise rezoning of R -1- 2,0,000 and R- 140,00.0 -it had -been an answer,'to the 'problem of. the cost of 'furnishing an extensive road system. He stated that the'proposal for R- 1- 10,,000 and R -1- 000 would require mo "re.extensive street 'systems which 'would put a burden on the residents of the area,, but.would in any event be better than the existing R =4- 6,500 which would require even more streets for development. Comm. Head stated the economic effect on the property owners must .also be considered, since at the present time under R -1- 6 zoning the property owners still have the option to subdivide and sell .off at a. profit,, whereas if; the parcels. pare restricted `they would no longer 'have this option and lose a - capital .'investment. Chairman Hdr'cizd opened the public. -hearing to , discuss the Envi- ronmental,.Impact Questionnaire regard to the rezoning /pre- zoning of the Bodega.Avenue area. Mr. Boehlje stated he wished to point out that the Environmental Impact Quest- ionnaire filled out by the staff indicated several answer's in.the affirmative; however, all of'these impacts were potentially 'favorable because they would result in .lower densities and less cutting up,of the "hillside in 'the area.: Comm. Wright. asked 'if' the ,property owners had received copies of the E..I.Q.. Mr. Boehlje replied that they had riot, wher`•eupon Chairman Horciza -asked Mr._•Bdehlj•e t0 review the E.L.Q. for the benefit of the people.. Mr,. Boehlje briefly reviewed the questions that had been answered in the affirmative on the. E.I.Q. and explained the reasoning behind the determi- nation that only positive effects would occur,. Mrs . Jerry Fowler,, a proper "ty owner' in the area,. voiced her objection to the reconsideration of.the tolling of this area. She stated she wished the zoning, °to stay as " it ,was at. present, and obj' strenuously to all :o''f' the past hearings - and the, amount of time the matter had been under, consideration. Mrs. Fouler stated. the City Council 'had, voted, to leave the property :zoned as it was, and yet. the Planning Department would not allow lot splits .and asked 'the,City Council to reconsider the matter. Mr. Bbehlje explained that the area had not been reconsidered because of the staff, but because within the last.'two or three.months property owners' in the area had r.equre'ste'd. subdivision of their 'properties that could not be accommodated.by, plans the City now has. The matter had 'th'erefore been sent_ 'to the 'City Council for I recommendation and they had provided direci ion for the Planning Commis s ion,. The public hearing was . cl.osed,. Comm. Wright to direct the Planning Director to•pxepare and post a Negative Declaration for the proposed rezoning /prezoning of the Bodega Avenue area. The motion. was seconded by Comm. Hilligos&.: AYES 7 NOES' . 0 ABSENT 0 C Planning, n Minutes, February 3; - Petaluma Ct Plannn C'ommissio - At,tl s point, ' Head informed ..the! Chairfian that he believed he could serve the City of Petal:'uma mu h better as a citizen, and therefore asked't'o be e'xcused'to participate in the public hear- n in.'the 1 ' g ntere,st of the He ;then vacated his position and s`ea'ted' °hims.,elf °in th'e' w The public hearing.,was opened to discus's the proposed rezoning./ prezoning. Mi. Dorenfe =ld explained to the Commission where hia roperty was located, and expressed the desire to be willing to d I evelop his property to R- 1- 10.,000�zoning. He stated he had supported..the land for '32 years and had gotten nothing out of it ! and would not be - able to develop his property if it were rezoned to, R 1'-',20,000.` Mr. Dorenfeld' informed the-Commission that he had com a• ni' 'tmen't °- f,or development �on his property and the cost of the M. . roads and' would therefore be up to the developer. Comm.. Bond "'st'ated that if each property owner were to develop independently the cost involved in public improvements would eat up. any profit they might obtain, and he felt fact had never been gotten across to the landowners. A.'discussion followed with regard to the problems enco.untered trying to develop long str i ps "of property in terms of providing access and public util and its actual econofuic feasibility. In response to a question by Comm. Bond, Mr. Boehlje advised with regar.d.to Mr. Dorenfeld ° s property -an estimated 17 lots could be under R_ -1- 10,'000 zoning and 15 lots under R- 1- 20.,000` zoning. He,al'so advised'that in order to develop property a through street would have to be provided, since it could not be. serviced with.a cul -de -sac. that the this Mr. Glenn.Head addressed . Commission from -the audience, stating that he was interested from t.he'point of view of a tax - payer in the City of Petaluma, he was also. interested in its development,.and he was also concerned that when actions were taken the public would not suffer too much from financial loss. He stated'•he disagreed with the zoning line indicated on the p- ro,pos:ed plan, since he 'felt it should extend straight across instead of at an angle to give the property owners a better - chance to subdivide their property.. Mr. Head stated he felt that a.dif•ferent zoning type should be implemented for this area entirely, since if the property owners were going to have to sacrifice their rights to subdivide their property, he felt they should,be financially reimbursed' to make -up for it. He contended 'that the.Property should not zoned as residential at a higher tax rate if it could not -in'' fact -, lie used for it, and therefore sugge's.ted "'a combination type zoning of residential and agricul- tural. Mr. Head stated be was a " <stxong believer in the con - stitutional �f'orm of government,', but he also believed that perty bwners.should be their lands as long as they did not interfere with the rights of others, and he did not feel the Commission had' the right 'to tell a property owner it was economically unfeasible to develop his hand or to tell him what should be done with his land.. -7- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, February 3, 1976 Chairman Hor�ciza•asked' Mr. Head a specific zoning recom- • mendat =ion. Mr. •Head stated, he would recommend 'a new type" of zoning altogether. For example, the Commission rezoned the ,property to R- 1- 20,00.0 or R -1- 40,000, 10,000 sq. ft. of the property shoilld.,be,,zoned as•.residential and-the rest zoned as. agricultural to provide some tax relief in the. future. Chairman Horciza replied that the zoning - was not R -1- 20,000 or R- 1- 40,000 at the present time an +he wished for a recommendation under the existing circumstances. Mr: Head replied that the zoning should be left as it.now exists, with the condition that before, the, City considers rezoning. for .this, area, that a new zoning structure be set up to provide proper. relief for property own'ers,. Mr•. Head referred to a staff report.which indicated that the taxes would be increased as the market value of the land is increased by subdivision, and questioned if.the Commission was trying to relieve the problems of the people or to put an add'i- tional tax burden on them. Mr. Boehlje stated he wished to clarify that the report that Mr_ Head was, referring to was with regard to the area plan for the area, and would not apply.to_the•rezoning action being considered. -. Mr. Harry DeChene informed the.Commission .that he had recently done some,research'on tax structure in thus area and found that there was no reasonable established value.of property, since there was a drastic difference of the of the .land in °this area. He stated he was in agreement with the R -1= 10,,000 zoning for his property, but was concerned about obtaining a just establishment to place all of the property owners on the same tax basis. Mr. Don Waite informed the Commission he lived ,over the hill from this area and.felti the R= 1=20,000 zoning proposed would not.be feasible. f a sa- leable lot since it was too st-r- ingent. He suggested that the Commission consider slope- density type zoning. Mr. Ace Marcellus informed the Commission he was,a property owner in the prezoning area..and was in agreement,wiih R -1= 10,000 zoning for his • ro ert. � He believed it,,would be unfeasible to provide p P Y roads-for less density zoning, but stated realized there would have to be additional streets from B'odega Avenue to provide ,access for R-1-6,500 zoning.., . Chairman Horciza asked if anyone in the - audience living in the 'proposed; R - 1 =20., 00.0 zoning, .area was in favor of it. Mrs,. Joan Paddor informed the Commission the .- lived a•t the to p of a hill in this proposed R - -1- 20: zoning- area and would prefer it to be zoned. R- 1- 40, She added she felt. development of this area would•be aesthetically ,a disaster and would not be'good planning for a City ;that•is trying to its. ,growth,. Mrs. Paddor stated that she :felt. with..R- 1 -.40, 000,. ,zoning , the: public improvements would not be needed., and that property•owners could make as much of a profit by selling off ,larger parcels that would not need these public improvements. -8- ' Petaluina City Planning Commission M nutes, ,February 3., 1976 Mr. DeChene,,stat -ed he understood - sstil - still a sewer problem 4 .an nQthin could• happen. �unt�ln:anohat � :Boehlje replied that d aa sked what would, h pp g.. assessment district was formed, since he.serious.l.y doubted if much development could take place in ':the area without an assessment The formation of an assessment district was briefly - discussed. : Mr. Boehlje advised that if development of a major nature was_.•pro;posed the developer would be responsible for the. extension of the sewer, however, for small developments he' assumed it would force an assessment di�str.a.ct„ situation because .the ,indi.vidual dev,:elopers would not be large enough for the-City to require the sewer. He further advised that`he.thought that each.registered voter would be al.lowed'one'vote in the and that if ,:the assessment district was .turned down;.the only way an individual could develop might..be to accept the responsibility of the construction of the whole length. of the sewer to his property. Mr,. '`Dean Merrick - stated he was not a resident of the area, but had some questions. He asked if sbme of the area was set aside fo.r open space, if it could then furnish some relief for the R -1- 2G,000,zoning and-the provision of requiring.the developer to furnish the sewer and water services. Mr. Boehlje replied that the` best :way to develop the land would be to assemble it and then redivide i 1. .. He.. 'went :on to say °''u that problems did exist because of the hilly ;contours and ,the „ public.; facilities perhaps not being ad ovideean b ade l uate e r000salforaale their lands and q � P P c p q p p Development, a higher .density .could be obtained. On the other hand, . based , on individual lot::spl.its which did not relate - to adjoining proper- ties, Mr. ,Boehlje advised that the City. could only deal. with the present zoning.techniques., Mr.:- Merrick then suggested asking the . Cit y Council to table the"matter until a single plan could be generated:. Mr. Boehlj.e, .a, deal of planning went into a Planned Unit Development and he did not think the peoplesin this.area were willing to go.to that extent. A: recess was called at 9_:40 p m... , . and,, the., meeting resumed at 9:45 p.m. , at which time Comm.. Head, depart!ed"'. Mr.. Bil- lings,,, a resident of Paula Lane,, : to the problems involved in the development of this .area, and expressed concern that p:rezoning of the County area would result in higher taxes. He - recommended providing adequate streets so that the portion within the City limits.could be developed, for R- 1- 6,500 zoning„ shed) to ,re'tain, the area in the l County as, Agri- 'cultural. e wi, A discussion 'followed r,:egardixig,possible changes in taxation. Mr,. Boehlje informed' Mr Billings;1 - that the County zoning would still remain in effect as it presently exists, since th'e.prezoning .was only a recommended zoning if the area would be annexed to-fhe City. He added that the ar:ea,in the City limits should have.a reduction in taxes rather,than an increase as a result "of th ”, e recommended rezoni -, IX Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes,-February 3, 1976 Mr. DeChene stated that, to:what he had learned at the Assessor's 0£fice,.,'the taxation :was not equated on the zoning of the property but was equated accord` ng'. to. its' 'us'age. Mrs. Jerry' Fowler expressed her desire 'f'or R -1 -10, 000 zoning or less Mrs Paddor- advised that Mr. Joe- Pagliaro could not be present.this evening,, but had stated his desire for 1 -acre zoning. Comm. Bond stated that the only= rationale for R- 1- 10,000 zoning, - would be subdivision, and he did not think. enough, property owners could get together to accomplish this development, since there were many people opposed to it.. Mr.. Dorenfe:ld again expressed his ,desire to be able to. develop his property_ Comm,. Wright = informed him that even though he - might, wish to, develop his property he could not feasibly do so:,, since "it was. a long strip of .land and its development would require' 'th cooperation of his neighbors. Mr. Boehlje informed him he would have to construct a s.tr.eet: and his development potential was very limited no matter what the zoning,; since he would need the cooperation of his neighbors to forin,an, assessment: district and; other various things. �He•went on °to' say that the alternatives on Mr. Dorenfeld's property were very limi,t'ed, but. the. proposed rezoning followed up by a ,specific plan ,would furnish a , public. ,street going through the property, which could in turn,:service it,,. Hilli. oss asked what slope Comm.. G 'g density o-zonng. would do for: the area. Mr: Boehlj`e. replied. that - slope "density zoning would very probably come.close to what was being proposed, since the larger . -lots would be planned for the higher slopes;. It was clarified that the proposed zoning line followed the contour of the land. The. public hearing was closed,. Chairman-Hor.ciza stated that since Comm., Head had removed himself after ,a vote had been taken on the E. I. Q. related to the >B'odega Avenue area, the yore would. have to be rretaken. Comm. Wright therefore moved t- d the Planni.n g Director to prepare and. s. postaNegative 'Declaration for .the: proposed' rezoninglprezoning .of the B'odega Avenue area -. Comm Hilligoss seconded the motion. AYES 6 'NOES 0 ABSENT 1 ' y. , counci Comm. Bond- moved' to recommend to the Cit l that 'the area under consideration be rezoned /prezoned ,to.R=1- 10,000 and R -1- 20, > .00.0'. zoning.: -as. projected by the .sta'ff ,:, motion was seconded by Comm. Popp, Thee area to be. deleted from C =N zoning was clarified. _'4 AYES 6 .NOES; 0 ABSENT 1 . :�10- Petaluma City Planning, Commission Minutes, February 3, 1976 '� „'�NOMA °CbUNTY �I REFERRALS': i OTHER BUSINESS , H i i� s' Mr I ehl�e ^,br ie y reviewed t fylhe ecomend med; policy suggestion . - .. , r ;- . r with regard to the handlingof „the.Sonoma County referrals, A brief 'dl''scussion.followed,.after which Comm. Waters made a motion to form a policy recommendation.to rely on_.the judgement of the Planning - Director as which Sonoma County,.r,eferrals should be re- ferred the anni ` h Plaftnn g Commission fory,decision and which he to should act lf, e motion was seconded by Comm. Wright. AYES 6: NOES 0 ABSENT ..l Comm .., Bond 'asked,-if it would . be , . possible to furnish the Commis - sion a copy of the, letters to the County on those matters Mr. Boehlje� acted upon. He,was informed copies would be furnished. Chairman Hor.ciza stated.that Comm.: Head had questioned Mr. Boehlje's title of Planning..Director in.the legal notices in the p p a er­, n's,tead of his title as Secretary to the Planning Com- mission Mr. Boehl'e stated that 'as • � � '” � � �� Planning Director it was his job to .place the legal notices in the paper; and it was therefore proper to use the Planning Director title.. Comm. Bond, f ated that he "was concerned about the low -cost housing ,p and the fact that although everyone says it can't.be' done because of costs involved, the policy still exists in =both the Environmental Design Plan and the Housing Element. Comm. Bond therefore asked if it would be.,possible to bring all p rlating- to .low -cost housing,,toIgether, in. , onle% package to construct a' straight - forward approach to the problem and stimu- late some action. He also suggested finding out what other cities were doing on the matter. Mr. Boehlje informed him his request could be granted, and added that the only option open may be to employ innovative, in housing styles. Comm. Bond DeVelo� e mentControl stem the in the Residential granting P oi p y y would not insist upon thes,e' units being constructed. Comm. Waters stated he felt the deletion of. current housing construction requirements would only cheapen the houses and take away the desirability of the project. He therefore suggested that possibly redevelopment of the older p'orti'ons of the City would be more feasible. Comm. Waters felt that a determination should be made.as to the ultimate goal and- what type of people were to be placed in the units. Chairman. Horciza agreed that some formula should be established. Comm. Hlligoss talked' briefly about the Housing and Community De- velopment Code E nforcement and Senior Citizen Housing Project currently being considered for block grant funding. Comm. Waters informed the Commission that the City of Tacoma, Washington, had done an excellent rehabilitation j'ob in furnishing housing for the elderly. -11- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, February 3, 1976 Comm: Wright s' meeting with regard to the g tested he had a Petaluma Care and Guid'an'ce Center on- January- 281, 1976. He ififotmed the Commission that the "end result , was. that if any patents of the children attending had any problems or complaints, the, principal would . a 6 . as spokesman for the permanent liaison ^committee. Chairman•Horc =za asked if any of the problets ;had' been- , solved.,. Comm. , , Wright informed him. ,that Mr; Dahlinger was ,going tol, ^upgrade the fence and that the number of: patients taking walks at,' onetime had been red "uced. He also. advised that there had ,been some discussion about forming some kind' of a Women's Auxiliary of the neighbor's in, the area 'who would assist in taking some of the people out on excursions. Comm. Wright added that thi' ,,, would only be. possible •�throu,gh a. 'training program, which would be conducted by a 'repr,esentat-ive 'from Sonoma County.. He, concluded by stated that,quite a 'few women were anxious to volunteer for this training program,, and were also eager to have some knowledge of, what was, going on: within° the hospital. ADJOURNMENT: "There, being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Attes L 44.40 - Chairman -12-