HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/12/1972J anuary 1w2, 1972
Adjourned Special Meeting of. the Petaluma Planning Commission was
held on January 12',. :1972 as 7:30 P',M,. in the Council Chambers,"
City Hall, Petal'uma;
PRESENT Comm., Balshaw, Cer;ini, Daly, Schmelz,' Waters
STAFF': William C. McG vein, Planning Director V w,,
F
• .t
CONSIDERATION .O;F ADOPTION OF THE ,ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PLAN FOR
THE CITY OF PETALUMA (Continued)
Further discussion on comments and recommendations shown•on item-
ized check list from environmental citi -zees' committees and
property owners:
STEM 25 Designation, of larger area for .bet.ter quality.
multiple residen devel,opment.
It was pointed out by the staff this matter had been d°:iscu's°sed
at previous C meetings and the matter had been ,dis
cussed in the -text of the Environmental Design Plan.
Chairman Water stipulated that this item should. be marked
"TEXT" on Item list'fo,r referral.
ITEM 26 Support of the Downtown Area for the next two or
three years and not Permit expansion on east s.id'e
It was brought. to the Com*miss.ion:' s at.ten'tion that. this• matter
has already been covered in a legisl <atve policy statement_,
that there was no time limit on this legislative policy
statement,
Mr, McGivern clarified the City Council's policy statement
by saying that its intent was -to support the downtown area,
but not to eliminate the.developme:nt'of the east side shopping
centers in commercial areas;. M atter referred to TEXT of EDP
ITEM 2 7 Area :adjacent to. Walnut Park Off de Commercial
ITEM- 42 . residential designation should .,be placed
on west side of Petaluma Boulevard South,,
Present zoning is R -2 -3000 (duplex zc,iing), Community Commercial
and C. -H (Highway Commercial'; profe,ssion;al offices, high-density
and commercial,'
Map conforms with suggesti,on.on Item 2 7, but conflicts with
Item 4.2,,, second portion of pa.ragra.ph_,.
I�.
J
Planning Commission Minutes
January 12, 1972 - PAGE '2
Motion made by Commissioner Bals'haw,, seconded by Commissioner
Cerini that the areas south and west of Walnut. Park`b.e retained.
as RESIDENTIAL.,; Motion passed un,animo sly
ITEM 46 Area .Petaluma Boulevard South; south of .I:St:re.et,
including Van Bebber Bros.� , .Donal., et"c ,. remain
ind'ustrial
It s- wa s-decided e
ided bhthe Commissio
h
discuss this ' tem separat:e-
a
I TEM 28 McNear Property., south of city, des,.gnated as
multiple density residential,
Present zoning is R - •M -1500; proposed use ;shows recreational, use,
with retention -of the C -H zone on the south side and C -H zone
on the north side of Petaluma Boulevard:South ;.also includes
some high- density (small.. area),,
The parcel being discussed is located on a knoll, has some
•
existing s- .tructures (house. and, buildings) , with ten,n .;s. court
and is a. fairly wooded area,, The Commission questioned whether
or not it would be, :feasible to designate . the area, as high- density
because of the lack of services in the area; It was explained
by the consultants and the, staff , t.hat, Petaluma Boulevard South
is zoned. Highway - Commercial, and that a. food store" and some
other services are available=
Motion made by Commis.si.oner Balshaw, seconded by Commissioner
Schmel,z that the area'_be retained -as shown on the Environmental.
Design Plan for. RESIDENTIAL and RECREATIONAL uses,.
Motion carried—unanimously,
I TEM
29
Covered in
ITEM 26'
ITEM
32
Eliminate
Green and. Par Wa —y from Plan;,
C.ommiss:i Da clarified' the s.tat:em6nt he had made at a
prior meeting regarding the greenbelt area., He, was ' not opposed
to the; greenbelt, per se, however, he felt that it should ex"
elude the thoroughfare as.a ciroulati(:. route
The matter of the Napa -- Sonoma Expressway skirting the green-.
belt area was brought up. The•staff said that the.surveying
pr`ese:nt.ly being done in the area was 'being done for t =he
present highway and'n.ot for the. proposed expressway as plans,
rights -of -way, construction target dates have not been set.
Planning Commis.s'ion .Minutes'
January .12, .1972' - PAGE 3
The matter of.the greenbelt invalves..financing, traffic
patterns, the establishment of plan lines, and-preservation
of the area from deve.lopment.until such time as financing
is available to deve
it was the co',ncensus of the Commission that if at all possible,
the greenbelt should be prese rved 'as part <o.f the plan; that
the responsibility should fall.., in, part., with the developer,
It was further pointed -out that recent Federal and State laws
required the provision for parks, preservation of open space,
and consideration of bicycle pathways in all, communities,
Motion was made that, the consideration the elimination from
the plan of the greenbelt and, parkway not be considered, `motion
made by Commissioner Daly, seconded by Commissioner Balshaw,.
Motion car ried unanimously
TTEM 34 Omit. Parkway reference in gr eenbelt area.
Commissioner. .Balshaw clar.if.ed his statement made -at. a prior
meeting that when he referred to the omission of the parkway
in the greenbelt area, he was specifical.lp speaking 'of the
area on the east side and not the,west� side of the city.
Refer to E.nvironment_a °l Design Plan TEXT " .,
ITEM 33 "" Eliminate men.tio.n of removal of airport
Refer to Environment.a.l Desig,n TEXT.;:.
.ITEMS 35, 37 Annexation of urea within greenbelt; greenbelt not to
be referred to a,s..circulat on route.
Refer- to .Environmental Design Plan TEXT
ITEM 36 McNear Island and ra :ilroad yard property should
be put. in "Study Area" for further study
Refer t.o Environmental . Design Pllan TEXT
ITEM 38 Corona Road Overpass - -;make — arth'er study re:
traffic flow and development .;., es,
Commissioner Cerini pointed out that some cons- ideration should
be be given.to traffic flow in the area,,, His particular con-
cern centered on the. fact that the industrial land in the area
could be developed without giving consideration to the preser-
vati,on of rights -of -way for a possible cloverleaf interchange
at Corona Road.
Commission recommended that some mention should be made in.
the TEXT regarding the above comment,.;
Planning Commission.Mnutes
January 1.2, 1972 - PAGE 4
ITEM 39 What happens to areas over 2.5o slo pe?
The TEXT makes mention that housing should be built on slopes
not to exceed 25% grade, The development of these areas are
governed in the subdivision ordinance..
ITEM 43 Recommend commercial for area on Petaluma Boulevard
North adjacent to Lucky Shopping Center,
The plan designates planned residential for the area, Present
zoning is C -N. Commercial, inside city limits and C -3 Commercial
and M -1 Industrial in the county areas
Motion made by Commissioner Daly, seconded by Commissioner
Bals'ha .t
w ; that we reaan the.area -as shown on the Environmental
Design Plan, Motion carried un.animousl
ITEM 45 Planned residential designation for the area ;east of
Washington Square Shopping Center (Swanson & Cutler
Property) ,,
This large, triangular piece, directly behind the shopping cen-
ter, is presently zoned R -1 -6000 with a small strip zoned as
P -M. (Professional - Medical)
The plan proposes that the zoning be planned residential.
The matter was ' di,scussed by the Comm s , s.,ion and they felt they
had covered the matter of the degree of density in development
areas under ITEM, 1.5..
Motion: made by Commissioner Balshaw,-seconded by Commissioner-
Daly that the area in question as shown on the land
use .map.
Motion carried unanimously
ITEM 46 Zero Manufacturing and V:anBebber Bros properties
industrial. (Located between. Petal.uma River and
Petaluma Boule South.)
Properties are present.:ly zoned. M- L(light industrial); along
- First: Street and "H" Street zoning Is C -S (sere- ce.commercial);
between Second and Third Streets it C- H(highway commercial),
extending over adjacent to "I" Street; on the other side it.
is C =S (.service commercial),.
It was pointed out that these two businesses are presently
operating in an area where there is intensified commercial
use -.. Commissioner Schmelz felt that the Planning Commission
should take a serious look at all of the -land that was zoned-
Planning Commission Minutes
January 12, 1972 - .PAGE-5
industrial to accommodate present uses and make recommenda-
tions for land uses at a future. date Commissioner Cerini
stated that he was of the opinion that Planning Commiss-
i.o.ners, they had the responsibility of protecting these two
industries and. that the zoning should - remain industrials
After further discussion, • Chairm n, Waters called. for a, motion,
Motion, was made 'by Commissioner �t o etn the land _ as
3 6w - ' _ ziriz�r c n e i rr n
P Man
Motio DENIED 3 noes , 2 . aye r
ITEM 4. Objection to designating one specif:ic commercial
shopping center for expansion at East Washington
and' McDowel B (Held f rom Jan ,,.. 11, 1 972 )
The area discussed by the - Co,mmissi:on to- expand the commercial
land use is approximately seventeen (17) acres, located to the
north of the 'Petaluma Plaza Shopping Center, which is presently
zoned community commercial.. The concensus of opinion is that
there probably will not be further development in this area
within' -the next five years; that the Commission should remain
flexible on this parcel in the event it should become. desirable
for high- density residential development„
Motion made by Commissioner Daly, ;seconded by Commissioner
Balshaw that the area to the north of the - Petaluma Plaza
Shopping Center be placed in a holding zone for - further study.
as indicated on the Environmental Design Plan,_.
ITEM 51 Request for smaller 6,000 sq. ft., .lot designation
for the area including Combs property on Cherry
Street. (Cherry Valley area)
The Environmental Design .Plan recommends urban low - density
for the area -, It is presently zoned R-1-6000. The Envi.ron-
menta.l. Design Plan will not change the zoning, but suggests
that the overall area be kept*as an urban low - density area,:
Motion made by Comm. s:ioner Daly, seconded by Commissioner
Balshaw th,at..the area in question remain as shown on the
land use plan.,
Motion carried unanimously,
ITEM 52 Recommendation that. the area on the west side of
Petaluma Boulevard South, from "I" Street north,
not be designated R-1(residential) or multi - family
residential, but should be C -H (highway commercial)
on the .lots fronting on Petaluma - Boulevard. South
Planning Commission Minutes
January 12, 1972 - PAGE 6
Land is presently zoned highway commercial. fronting on
Petaluma Boulevard, one lot. depth,, The area is shown on
the Environmental Design :Plan as urban low residential.,,
There are a number of businesses in the area at, the
present time.,
Commissioner .Bals.haw made a motion that they accept
Mr. Gavriloff's suggestion that the area described above
be designated as C -H (highway commercial.) for the lots
fronting on Petaluma Boulevard, South
Mot c arried u.nan:i,mousl
ITEM 54 Recommendation that some areas be specifically
designated fox lower density, large R -1- 10,000
(residential') d'ey e'l,oemen.t,
Refer t E nvironmental Design 'Plan TEXT,,.
At this point in the proceedings, Chairman Waters indicated that
all of the items had been, covered a.n:d the Commission would proceed
to the REVIEW OF THE TEXT, ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN P.LA.N.
Comm:issi.on recessed.
Cha .rman Waters called the session to order,
REVIEW OF TEXT.,, ENVIRON DESIGN 'PLAN
The Commission began the .review of recommendations for change in
the text of the Environmental Design Plan as proposed, by the
Commission, and city staff to compliment the plan and the recommenda-
tions of the Citizen Groups,.
:PAGE 6 LAST PARAGRAPH The greenbelt park defines the urban. farm,.
On the west side, the park will- function as a parkway for the
improvement of circulation..
The City Engineer had requested that, the wording be changed
to "collector - road with landscaping"
The Commission. felt this would limit, - to construction of
a 60' wide.road~ The Commission then explored several possi-
bilities for changing the text so that the City Engineer, the
developer, and the City would be able to use the text in a
flexible manner, yet cover such things as improvement of
-'
circulation, esthetics, etc,
The decision was then made to change the second sentence of
the last paragraph, page 6 to read: "On the west side, the
greenbelt will contain. a .roadway for the improvement of
Planning Co.mmi.ssion Minutes
January 12, 1972 - PAGE 7
PAG 7 SECOND PARAGRAPH "Land outside- the EDP should be added
only if the following conditions are present:" to the
bottom of the page.. ..
The question re this section was "What seer district? Do
you mean the 1965 Master Plan AreaP"
The Commission f 1.t that if the EDP contains only the area
bounded by the , there would be no need for the
entire paragraph,, Commission's decision was to DELETE THE
PARAGRAPH TO THE .BOTTOM OF PAGE 7.,
PAG 35 FIRST PARAGRAPH, LINE 5 where the sentence begins, "7f it
becomes Clean beyond the initial period,. , ( a.nd. ending).,_
Means of acquiring land for the park are explored in the
section on strategies and specific recommendation "..
DELETE ENTIRE SECTION..
PAGE 10, LI NE 3 which reads "the improvement.of the Hopper Street-
Bridge Street route — , =. —.
Change to read: "the improvement of the Lakeville .Hopper
Street - .Bridge Street route._.,"
PAGE 10, LASTIPA.RAGRAP THIRD LINE, fill in blank space to read:
4135
PAGE 11, LAST PARAGRAPH beginning with "Varied lot sizes and .housing
types would be appropriate,_...T(ending with)--be centrally
located and be part of a larger open"
DELETE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH
PAGE 12, FIRST PARAGRAPH, beg-inrii.ng with "space in the valley,,,..,,
..,,,ending with)--of the valley is considered w "
DELETE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH
PAGE 12, LINE 13 w.hi.ch reads: "The route connecting Magnolia.
Street 5e,xtended,) and Street has the highest— –o : "
Change to ..read: "The route connect nn Magnolia Avenue
(extended) and Howard Street has the -ghost .„.. Remainder,
of sentence is correct.
PAGE 1.3, FIRST °SENTENCE: "The planned Caulfield Lane extension
under the.freeway and the Hopper - Bridge Street „,;:,,,.”
Change to read: "The planned Caulfield Lane extension over
the freeway and the Lakeville- Hopper- .Bridg.e Street, ,"
Rest of sentence to remain the same,
1.
.` Planning Commission Minutes
January 12, 1.972 - PAGE 8
PAGE .13, FIRST PARAGRAPH, LINE b, add the fol"lowing sentence
immediately before the sentence which starts: "Other
new routes,, "Immediate planning .shouted be carried
out to review means o't I e liminating tra:ff -.c t.ke 221 at t he
railroad tracks..
PAGE .13, LINE 9, change Magnolia Street improvement to "Magnolia
Avenue improvement,.,
PAGE 13, L:IM 10, change m . "and extension as a major str eet,,."
to: "'and . extension as a collector street."
PAGE 1.3, SECOND PARAGRAPH starting with "An extension of Webster
Street through.. s ;, , , (and ending) , � ,,'mareas together with
a coherent circulation pattern..
DELETE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH I'NS'ERT-THE FOLLOWING:
The City En.g;i,neer suggested that the foa_1owang be made a part of the
Env.ir•onmental Design Plan and the Commission approved
"Two new routes through the hills, to connect. the parkway with
Bodega Avenue „_ An extension, of Webster Street over the hill .
in order to provide Collector Street access between the
Cherry Valley section and the Senior H -.igh, School, Hillcrest
Hospital, and Petaluma Junior Nigh School facilities- Due
to the grade, 'a landscaped cut w ill be necessary to preserve
aesthetics (similar to the .land,scapi.ng.p-xovided at the
Washington. Street- Bodega. Avenue connection
A route e:xtendng.from the southwest W,, Petaluma
Junior High School (Bantam Way extended north a.dross Bodega.)
where the hill is"less steep and grading could, be minimized,.
This route, however, is not direct and need Western Avenue
and Bantam Way to connect, with Webster- and points south„
These routes, in addit to the ring parkway proposed,
would tie the central and west areas together with a coherent.
c.ircula:t:io.n pattern,,”
ADJO URNMENT
Chairman Waters adj ourned the meeting until Friday January 14, 1972
ATTEST:
Chairman
Secretary