Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/21/1976AGENDA PETALUMA CITYIPLANNING COMMISSION, September 21, 1976 REGULAR MEETING 7:30 CITY COUNCIL 6 CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA & Planning— C ion-!. encourages- applicaifts'..or tfteir, representatives to:,b& :available at- the meeting's to answer` •q,uest3- no ,agenda. -items need to a later. date.due-to-'a 'lack of pertinent information PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL: �Comm. Bond -. Head Harberson H6rciza .­Pbpp 1waters Wright STAFF: !Ronald F. Hall; Plafining-Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES: CORRESPONDENCE MIKE HUDSON 1. Public Hearing to evaluate ; the. - ;Environmental Impact Question- DISTRIBUTING CQ. naire-for proposed. - wardh 6.q to - be located at 1297 Dynamic E.I.Q. EVALUATION/ Street. SITE DESIGN REVIEW: 2. Site Design' Review considerations at1das 'f or proposed- expansion of an existing 3,485• square foot warehouse -and facility. & M CONSTRUCTION' :'•Hearing to consider request by S. & M-Constr,uction (Manuel Pacheco). PRIVATE STREET•• REQUEST. to - permit - d!,!private - str-aet to serve -'two 1 -lots of a proposed f our lot -- subdivision: located at -765 Cheity Street. ' I ! WILLIAM & BARB ) PAULA/APPEAL 01 CONDITION '0 APPROVAL OF Ai PARCEL MAP I Appeal Various conditions of 4ppi7oi7al of a proposed parcel map f Of a& two . lot split - of 'property located behind 681 Bodega Avenue. DAN COLLINS 1. Public Hearing evaluate _the Environmental Im E.I.Q. EVALUATION/' naire for prop Autfo ' Body Shqp to be located at 1308 USE PERMIT Dynamic - St-reet 2. 'Public Hearing'.to I cbn'sider the Use Permit application to - allow an Auto -Body Shop in -a Light Industrial SMORGA BOB'S 1. Public Hearing to evaluate;the.-Envirenmental Impact Question- RESTAURANT naire for'a proposed Smorga B to be located. E.I.Q. EVALUATION/ at SouthMcDowell - Blvd. SITE DESIGN'RE,VIEW' 2. Site•Design Review•consideratibns for the proposed restaurant. PLANNING COMMISSION. AGENDA September 21, 1976 HOLIDAY `VIEW ESTATES) Consideration of the Tentative Map for proposed Holiday TENTATIVE Estates -Sub.divis on:consisting,of fifteen : lots to be along the Elm.Street extension: between West Street and Schuman Lane. E..I.Q. EVALUATI.QN'OF 1. Public.Hearing to�evaluate - the Environmental Impact Question - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS naire for a proposal to-amen d ;the E.D;P. from Agriculture] TO THE ;ENVIRONMENTAL Open Space. Urban Low Residential for 'the area_ DESIGN PLAN AND THE bound•by Westridge Subdivision-Unit41, "I ".Stre.et.Extehsion, GENERAL PLAN` and the foothills to the t south.and -west-. Z. Public Hearing to evaluate the•EnvironmentallImpact Question - naire fora proposal -to amend General -Flan from -,Low. Density. - , Residential to -Urban Density Residential and to amend: the E.DP. from Suburban Low-Density Residentia to .Urban . Low - Density Residential in the bound-by Magnolia Avenue; Keokuk - Street,; West.Street - and the City Limit line to'the West. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC Response to the <Pub,lc Utilities Commission regard the Environ UTILITIES;,COMMISSTON. mental.Data:S.tatement. for the Geysers- to•Lakevil(, 230 -KV 'Transmission_- Line. PARK PLACE .SUBDI. Modification of.•.General Development�P:lan-and� rev sed development VISION'PLANNED schedule - for- Park'Place._Subd'ivision Planned Communi,ty,Develop COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ment • (P.C.D,). MISCELLANEOUS E.I.Q. Evaluation of City's proposed application for_,a'Public BUSINESS: Works grant Economic Development Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce for the following two program.;activities: 1. Public Works Street Improvement Projects a. McDowell Blvd, between Corona 'Road and the San Francisco North Bay Industrial Park; b. McDowell between Washington Street` and, the new proposed hospital site.- adjacent to Lynch Creek; and C. The Caulfield Lane intersection,. 2. Community Park Improvements Project involving the development' of new recreation facilities for Lucchesi Park. ADJOURNMENT: M am � ETALUMA CITY'PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1976 EGULAR MEETING 7.:30 P.M. CITY CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm. Bond, 'Harberson *,, Horc'iza, Waters,= Wright *Arrived 7 :7 p:m::) ABSENT: f omm. Head,. Pope STAFF: Ronald'F. Hall. Planning Director: Leo P. Rachal, Associate ,Planner APPROVAL OF, .4 INUTES: The minutes of': September 14,- 1976, were approved with the cor- r.ec`tiori that Comm. Harberson• arrived. at. , .7 :40 p.m. CORRESPONDENCE: None. MIKE HUDSON .Mr.•Hall explained -then request by.Don•Petro representing the DISTRIBUTING CO. Mike Hudson. Distributing- Company' to allow for the expansion of E.I..Q EVALUATION/ an existing warehouse distributing facility for meat and cheese SITE DESIGN REVIEW: 'products: - located' at 1297,.Dynamic Street;.. The site has an ir- regular' shape' "with'_ a depth of -approximately 264 feet and an area of approximately. 22,176• s`quares,,feet, and the proposed addition would -be' 501' x ':75'':. The public.hearing was opened to consider the Environmental Im- pact Quest ohnaire. -•:No comments were offered from the audience • and• the 'public •hear -ing was <. Comm_. Waters' - moved =to ?direct :,the Planning. Director to prepare and - post a Negative'.'Declara•tlon for 1the. project. The motion was seconded- -by 'Comm. Bond::.':'' AYES 5' ' 'NOES° -0 ABSENT _2 The 5 conditio`n's - of. approval the site, design as recommended by ,the, staff and: concurred,-.with by the Architectural & Site Design,Review Committee were then read. +Comm. Wright. •moved..for approval 'of - the ,�slte design •.with, -.condi - , lions of .'approval. �as. recommended by , the _,gt : concurred ,with by :the & iSite:Desig_n =Review. Committee.- • The, motion, ' � 'was seconded by Comm. Harber-son.'• AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT . • 2 S' &.M'CONSTRUCTION. Mt. Hall explained that a reque st •had been received from S & M PRIVATE" STR&ET Constr tic tion ;to'' ;alloia''•for'a pr vate=:street to provide access to REQUEST: two Pots of.a:proposed�four.lo,t parcelrmap located at 765 Cherry "Street.L He �added' the most logical; development of the land � p... would be.a private street to.serve:lthe::proposed four lot subdi- vision.' Petaluma City Planning Commission - Miautes , , - Septemb,er 21, 1976 -2- -fo t wide travel Ian' d Mr. Hall stated. that the,, 17 'o & p)�,opose_ bx to,, 20r feet, to, p rovide the developer should be .wi dened ­ for • access; of emergency.vehicles. Mr;.''Ma'nuel Pacheco, developer of the pr-ojett; if .-the proposed .17-,fpo,t private drivewa was permitted, and the,. adj oii.i-ihg property, was developed in the future.with a.:17 -foot driveway, the total- width - of driveway would be 3.4 feet-, He added the-driveway would be paved And, As will maintained- by,Lthe 'Pro erty'fronting-. w1i a private. st�ree�t,, it A,be p, the street, but if fie i& required to iconstrupt, 20-foot drive- w4y..construction costs. would be increased -d - de' ito and bank slope. Comm. Horciza: stated a 20-'f driveway is ' required for use. by. emergency , typ.e :vehicles. Comm.. Har-berPon stated, the Commissions - was. considering the .subject property only And not any futute.development of the adjacent property: i Comm. Bond - added ,, that the requirement .for a 20".foo,t driveway f6r use b y 'emergency 1 w if Mr. Pacheco deemed it . vehicular traffic as,reas but Pa feasible, the matter : could be discussed with the City Engineer and the, matter. lef t, to his "d i .' M Hall'stat6d the private,.s.treet. conditions ,were•a recommendation of the Chief., -Building Inspector., Mr. - -stated,"that -since, the property has a_,.2,`: he would. -be. subject, to,�,a_dd_iLt_ constructi6itcosts if he is re- -quire xpa. between, the, .6 AG d, to -� tall., �the' utilit ies in -the A 0 'the -- _-u of under berm on. the rthside of 25. f oo,t roadway in lieu the private street.. 'Wr i ght moved that the private Lbe widened f r,om 17 - .feet - pme access �to. the pro- posed development. located, at 7.65 Street. He also in- - Cherry ' cluded; in the sewer motion. that,. the gas�,,� sewer and water. lines be placed -in the , area, between. the 6" AC berm and. the north side of the 25-foot roadway And utility easements, andthdse conditions were review and approval of the City Engineer. The motion seconded by Waters. AYES* 5 ­NOES, 0 ABSENT, 2. WILLIAM & BAR.BARA Mr. Hall explained the,-'request-of William and Barbara Paula to PAULA/APPEAL,'QF considet"an o zppearl .. of the.. conditions of approval of a proposed CONDI '.QP APPROVAL: - p arcel.-map,. to-.I�create.. two,,, lots, located at` Avenue. He OF PARCEL MAP added,.. the, >Apgli cant •, i s. •app pa ling, p ond . it ions 2 and 3 in -that cdh� ditioh #2.�requi.res....private street im rbvdte,nti plans, and..a pr-ivLate submitted approving the proposed ' private ,.,street; and-condi-tion- -.43, the standard in lieu f ee , - f or p ark �.,and .. rec reat ion purposes, five percent of the-ap- praised land 'value. 'The. applicant..� contends - that, this f ee shduld, not -a p ply .-to Lot #'I " the,­ owner of A•P, #6-441 in 1970 and ^should. be d7 of A.P. Y� 6- 4-41-35 and not as a separate-, - lot. -2- j Zi R Petaluma City Planning Commission Mi.nu September 21', 197& ' Ms..Paula.,stated the first ,division of property was conveyed to' Roger..Pearson in. 19'6,6, and in 1970 the back portion of the pro - perty was transferred' to the . ame p'e`r_son; However; the City`-has no record to indicate the transfer of property was' made. There recordation of the 1966 t - but there is is transfer of ,a no. record, to indicate: 1970` ; division of land. .She indicated t he that in 19.70 a p' n' the roadway was deeded to the City for right -of -.way purposes Mr.'. Hall suggested that one solution would be for the Pearson'property to revert back to one lot and in -that case the Pearson's could provide their own exclusive private. drive on:. the westerly side of - the property, and the Paula;'`s would.'then not have to provide a private street. ! Comm. Waters.moved.rthat the ',appeal of the conditions for the ; proposed parcel -map at 681 Bodega Avenue,'be withdrawn if the - di.Vis land c&n,.be resolved in, `that 'the back portion of the -of Pearson property be' `consder",ed one;parc "el with a private drive- May 'on..the' westerly, side' of the property." The motion was seconded by Comm. Harberson. i AYES. .5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 DAN COLLINS , Mr.'Hall. explained the.request of Dan Collins to locate an auto E.L.Q. EVALUATION./ body shop ,at 1308 Dynamic Street for the ,purpose of performing •USE _PERMIT: I. tune- ups,.repairs and spot painting, and that the subject build - g consists ,of 10 ,500 s. uare feet.., in ; _ Q 4 i• The�publi.t. .hearing „relating to the'Environmental Impact Ques- tionnaire was opened. No comments from the audience and the, public hearing was closed. Comm. Harberson;`moved to, direct the Planning Director to prepare and, post' a.Ne'gative,Declar_ation for the project. The motion was seconded 'by Comm. -, Bond. ` AYES' 5 NOES! 0 ABSENT` 2 _ .... ,. The- hear.ing.'re-lating to the Use Permit was-opened.... .. comments: were offered from the audence•,and. the public hearing was .closed.. '. Comm. Wright stated that this building previously was used as an j auto: repair shop but; did not have a' „paint booth. He added the r;< paint booth will be inside the 'shop will have proper venti- lation. ;Comm. wr*iot to grant the Use Permit with conditions of : ; moved ; , approval, :as stated. in the stdff, report `Comm. Harberson sec - '. onded the : ,motion. �. : AYES. 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 , i - -4- -i Petaluma tity Planning Commission Minutes, September 21,, 1976 SMORGA B'OB "S, Mr. Hall expla' re q u est Bo b hit to for the b Wh"g • RESTAURANT ° development, oflaedestaurantest tie q r Shopping E.I.Q EVALUATION /. :. • . . Center;, in a C -C, Central Commercial. z "one and tha the rest SITE_ DESIGN REVIEW;: rant would " have 'a. 'seating, 'capacity " of 290; persons. The'public,hearing.r:egardi4, Environmental Impact Question- „the naive .was opened. ” Comm. , Harb,erson expressed' concern that,, par- - t_icularly on weekend`s , the' parking 'lot - at the Washington Square G Shopping Center reaching, a 'saturation ,point.. Comm. Horciza stated that, with the addition of the p'r restaurant,, all available parking spaces wou'ld'be utilized: ..Comm.' Bond questioned 'if' it is' a 'Planning function to allow for the concentration of.similar type businesses in one area which : create parking 'and traffic problems. 'Comm. Harbe•rs'on fated this is riot' the r`es:ponsib;ility _`of � the .Pl'anning ;commission to determine if an economic survey °should be made, of a specific area -, or business.` Comm. .Wright moved to. direct ' the' Planning' Director to' prepare and post a Negative. Declaration for the proj The motion, was seconded by Comm. '"Waters. AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 The two conditions 'of app ;roval - f'or site :design as' recommended by ` . the staff and `con cur, red with Vy the. Architectural & Site; Design Review Committee were" then read.: Comm: °Wright stated the appli- cant in ; agreement to add- an exit to the, rear of the build - ing, and a canopy would 'V6 mount'ed. at the front entrance desig- riating the.name•of the restaurant. ;Comm,. Waters .moved for approval of the site design with condi- t ions. of. approval' as, recommended by the staff and concurred with by the Architectural &Site Design Review Committee. The motion .. was - seconded by Comm. Wright:. AYES 5 NOES .0 ABSENT' ` 2 HOLIDAY VIEW ESTATES' Mr. Racha1, ex l,ainied' the 'developer intends to •subdivide 4. TENTATIVE MAP: acres 'located west.. and east of 'the" proposed Elm Street. extension, along Schuman. Lane.. 'and ,West Street and construct ,1=5' custom designed..' omes. The: exi`s'ting zoning is .R -1° 10,000 (single- family.resident_al')_and . a§ the overall gross density of 3.1 units to an. acre. and. the..'General 'Plan, and Environmental Design Plan designates *2: 0. units to the, acre', - this plan does not con- form to the Gene•ral,Plan or' Environmental Design Plan density requ remenas.of: the- surrounding residential area. A letter from Donal '& A`sso'ciates; Soils & Engineering Firm, advised the, site is. suited" rtor residen €ial development from - a..geo technical standpoint, and that a detailed soils t investiga_tiori ;•including; - "subsurface exploration would be per - ` formed prior to :construction.1.•,Mr..Radial ,staged :that - subject to -4- Petaluma City. Planning Commission - .Minutes';,_�September..�21, 1976 acceptance_ of,.the.final•.map; a hydraulic analysis report .would 'be submitted..for.the'.propos'ed residential use on the subject property which , •'shall..include,the.,adequacy of the existing storm drainage 'along the northerly side of Schuman Lane. The conditions of approval for the.Tentative Map for the _15 proposed subdivision were reviewed•:. Comm. Waters stated that condition 5 should be clarified by: adding: "within -.the bounda- ries of the subdivision, shall be designated the,,Tentative Map (Subd . Section: 22.4.611 )". Comm. :Bond que's:tloned.condition as .to who.would be responsible for the. maintenance of the `_'bulb='.:. island:, . Jon-Anderson; of .MacKay & Somps, :stayed .this would be. a :unique type bulb constructed on a. steep •hi- llside.,.with_, cu -rbs surrounding' the area and suggested cobbles.tone ;texture•. surface, for,.inside the island area which would 'requreless'maintenance. Comm Harberson stated some type. of landscaping would be more appropriate in place of the rock -type.fo.rmation. Mr;.Rachal stated the developer would nstall.the irrigation system,and_,landscape the area, and the Parks Depa`r.tment. would be' resp,onsible for the maintenance. Mr. Alderson Drive expressed concern about the drainage :problems n:the;:area. He.- stated some type of barrier should be constructed as a security on the open driveway adjacent•tol his home and swimming pool. Mr. .Burk,,:`17. Larchr,Drive stated his, „garage floods and he has had to. shovel.. mud. '.off° his: property every year. He asked what security precaiut ions.. would. be taken , -to -rpreyent children from climbing the fence to...his ,• property,,, :and-, would like to. have some type of barrier cons tructed.`for- security: purp:os,es.:. -Comm. Horciza stated provi- sions have been for -the: installation of .fences for security purposes. Jon MacK ay, • & Sgmps, stated that in order to control the..flow of water to this area, a v- ditch, catch basin: and: about f eet: of pipe should -be installed. A v -ditch wll.be: cons .ructed"adown,:to Elm Street and the Alderson and Burk property .'wiill..:then•. not.: receive as much . run -off water. Mr. ,Burk stated-the dranage.:.problems should be remedied by 'the engineer prior . to acceptance ,of the ,•final map. ... Comm. Wright :moved to recommend approval of the Tentative Map for Holid °ay •V.iew• Estates ° to the City Council with -conditions of as by the Planning staff and City Engineer, with the following.changes: 1. Modify condition 5 ay,adding. "within the boundaries of the - subdivision; shall be,designated'on the Tentative Map (Sub - :division.Ordinance Section 22.4.611 ). Z. Modzfy,Item; 4...to- jinclude a vehicle •barrier shall be in- .. _ stalled.•,-. :. .. �._ . Petaluma City Planning Commission :Minutes ^i - September• -21, - 1976 - I , 4 - and - that the _. pr:oposed ion ..conforms to the eight �findings.::of •'the Map .Act ° Section 66474. The motion was seconded b.y:Comm. Harberson. AYES 5 NOES '0 ABSENT 2 E.I.Q. EVALUATION OF "I''' STREET` AREA PROPOSED AMEN- DMENT.S.10 THE ENVIRONMENTAL:::. -Mr. Hall ,exp.lained:that..corisideration wa be given to a modi- DESIGN.PLAN,AND .THE" fication.of.­the Environmental'Design Plan for the area bound.by GENERAL PLAN "I" °the Westr -idge. Subdivision, Unit -- #1,, located on ".I'' Street Exten- STREET AREA: sion and . the • foothills to the south. and west `f`or the purpose of considering; ad' ditional "residential - development lands., The revision would-b& from' Agriculture /Open ,Spade to Urban 'Low Density would allow for an increase in housing density .from h dwelling per acre. (4 to 4..5 dwelling . units per acre.. ,(364 units)•,.: Mr. Hall explained the logic f :or continuing growth on the side to allow for the full and efficient use of - existing improvements-and-public facilities on the-wes -t side and prevent. the east side from becoming an unduly large and' monotonously uniform development with excessive 'school costs • c'aused by =over.buildng - schools in fast ,growing neighbor- - r hoods. A.discussion -was held. on what-the impact would be if a revision • was - con'sid'ered' =to '•a -lloW for an - increase : -in housing units. Mr. Hall stated 20Z,!.of; the: land area.would be used for roads and homes would' be +developed. on . larger: lots' :with a density of 3 units per net acre... '. Comm: .Horciza. stated thel size. of , the lots would vary due terrain characteristics which would allow for 2' to 3 units per acre. Mr: Hall stated:.:the estimated 5,800 trip ends-per day for the -development area would not-have a significant impact on "I" Street:' Mr. Hall:: explained the action. of the Commission at this time was to 'consider oily. th'e..env- ronmental - issues - for modification of the Environmental'Desi'gn for the purpose of considering add - itional •residential. developed °.!lands., The Commission and p,ublic.were:ins ructed not to consider a specific development proposal. The-'publi.'c heariiig: relating.to the Environmental Impact Question n'aire was � op'ened- ' • - - Sandra 904 ''I" Street; stated the proposed change would incre'ase•'.`:propgr:ty taxes require additional schools and added ',water • f acilites A,.further.', study is needed • to 'determine if the existing rroads .: can:.handle, tlie. increased traffic.. The quality, of the re's homes ,are unsatisfactory and the pro subdivi- sion would -be constructedwby the: ;same developer. Mary Runge of Grant Avenue, expressed'concern that additional homes would -6- Nk_. A Petaluma City Planning C'ommission'Minuted, September 21, 1976 cause' more .floodirig problems 'f;rom i th,e Thompson Creek channel, and traff c_ generated 'fr,om the"subdivision would add to the present traffic "problems on' "I" Street and Grant Avenue. Comm, Wright stated_he, had not encountered.a significant amount of traffic on "I" ''Street and questioned`if` the main concern of the residents in the Wes tridge-Subd•ivision was- that__the.area should remain open space. Mr. Green, 122 Greenridge Drive, stated he would like to see no' further development in-the brit` if development did 'occur, the area 'shoul'd remain as'low' density residential with 2'.5 homes per acre, Steve O'Conner, 166 Westrid'ge Drive', stated' the • proposed subdivision would have an impact on overcrowded' Grant "School : create additional pro - blems ori. "I" "Street'due to"the'addtional traffic. The public hearing' was "closed.' Comm._ Wright'.stated:devel'opment` has :to be promoted on the west as iaell as 'on` the east' side of Petaluma: Comm. Bond moved 'that An Environmental "Impact Report be prepared on the subject-site to deter -mine what impact a development with a density'of'4..5 units per acre would have; and, what impact a density : 3 2 0''. units p'er acre would Have on the area. The motion, was seconded' by' Comm: Haiberson AYES - 5 ­ NOES 0 '. ABSENT 2 PUBLIC WORKS GRANT Mr: Robert'Meyer, City Manager, explained that the Commissioners E.I'.Q'. EVALUATION OF were consider -the E.I.Q..Evaluation .of an application for a CITY'S'PROP,O'SED Public Works Grant from the Economic'Development Administration APPLICATIONJOR.A for two program activiti Public Works' Street Improvement two ' PUBLIC WORKS; GRANT: Projects 2 Communi Park I1) ' ) y mprovemen't's Project involving the., development, of new.'recreation'fachtes for Lucchesi Park. He stated that. North.MeDowell Blvd. and the Caulfield Lane inter - section were two of the' streets listed as these streets meet the federal. - . criteria 'f:or g "rant 'funds, and that as a requirement of grant approval,.`contracts have to'be awarded and construction work - started within.a 90-day period. Comm.'Waters"moved'.`to ' d1rect the'Planning Director to prepare and Negative Declaration for the following two.program activities: 1. Public:Works Street "Improvement Projects a. ' McDowel'1 Blvd 'between Comma Road and the S.F. North Bay Park; b. McDowell` Washington Street and the new piopo "sea hospital site adjacent to Lynch Creek; • c... The Caulfield Lane improvement. Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, September 21, 1976 •2. Community, Park Improvements Project involving the develop- ment of'new redreat o for Lucchesi Park. The motion_was. seconded by'Comm. Wright. AYES 5 NO.E.S 0 ABSENT. 2 RESRONSE,'TO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION:' Mr,: Hall exp,,lained;that:Pacfic`Gas'& Electric Company under General_.Order_No..131 plans to construct a 230 KV Transmission Line from the - Geysers generation plant to their Lakeville 'Sub - station. The, n' is directed. to consider Route . "E" which would., pas . s directly through central Petaluma,, along. the Northwestern Pacific Railroad /U.S. 101 transportation,lines to a substation on Frates Road. Comm: Harberson spoke..'in opposition to the proposed "E" line stating the line ,would ,pas,s through-the central section of Petaluma and., the..tower!heights'would be 100', with tubular type . structures, and proposed that the "E" line parallel the " A " line Comm. Harbers,on. moved .to direct the Planning Director to write a letter_stating,'the was in opposition to the,con- struction, of.•the, 230 KV transmission line .and was in concurrence, with the_:recommendation of the City Council. The motion was seconded'by .Comm• Bond.. • AYES- . NOES 0 AB;S.TAIN 1 ABSENT 2 PARK. PLACE, SUBDIVISION Mr.. Hall e_cplained. that consideration - was given to the' proposal PLANNED COMMUNITY for' -the folloWVng modifications of - the General tDevelopment• -Plan DEVELOPMENT; and Development Schedule for P.ark,Place 1. Relation of the.t.ownhouse units (low and ;moderate cost units from portion of�the property to a more central location adjoining the multi- family area; 2. Realignment, of. the southerly east /west interior street to bseet the proposed multi- family area; 3. Reversing ,..the. sequence in­the Development Schedule between Phases 2'and 3 -of the single- family project and reversing the, sequence °_,.in,,the - Development Schedule between Phases 1 and 2 of -the_ family project in ,order to permit develop- went­in.c'on.tinuity with single - family Phase. 2. Mr. Jon.Joslyn,stated that Phase 2 will be relocated adjacent to North McDowell. Blvd,.. and.North.MeDowell Blvd. will be improved . along th.e :fr-,ontage; of.Park'Place Subdivision.• He added the realignment`of the..southerly east /west interior street. will not affect•.the access , to:�Bernard Eldredge 'Elementary School by' . students - living iii. Phase 1';. since as a condition 'of the tenta- tive map__.for,. Phase.,.a, Temporar access to Bernard Eldredge Elementary School -would be provided. x:12 Petaluma City Planning Septemb 21, 1976 Af ter a discussionj Comm, Waters: moved to approve the -modif i- cation. of the General. D6Veloptient Plan and - related Development Schedule,for.-Park-Place,Planned Comniunity. The motion was seconded"by.Comm. Harberson. AYES 5 NOES 9 ABSENT 2 E�. I., Q ..zVALU_ATION. OF PROPOS AMENDMENTS TO THE'__ DESIGN. PLAN,'AND.THE GENERAL:PLAN - MAGN OLIA /WEST . STREET AREAf -Street, and the City Limit Mr. Hall'explained that'. consideration was to be given to the =mod -i-f,idatioii:.,bf..the�General.-and Environmental Design Plans for .the purpose...of­considering additional housing development lands. This,: ,c44ngp..would for an - increase :in ,density from 2 dwel-­ ling: tnits/ to* 5.6 the. General Plan, and from 2-units/gross-acre to.4.5-- unit's , in the E.D.P. with a total of approximately.:160 The public-lhdArihg.wa to consider the Environmental Impact Questionnaire. Comm-. Romclizw-stated a traffic circulation pattern should be establi .,the. area. and questioned what the traffic impact would have b n Tom 'Fost.er.;,stated, this. development would enhance the area and Magiibli traffic impact from the-pro- posed-development; Comm.-Harberson moved that an Environmental Impact Report be p repared :�,on , the: aidbject property to establish what impact a de- velopment '`.df A.'5 , u4its: per 4,pre-wotild on the area. The motion was seconded by Comm: Wright. AYES 4 'NOES 0. ABSENT 3 Comm .�WAters excused the meeting at 12:10 p.m. ADJOURNNENtt Attest: There - be.ing . no f urther business, the meeting was adj ourned at 12:16 p.m. Chairman