Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/24/1969_ - A January 24, 1969 Special meeting of the.Petaluma City Planning Commission was held on January 24, 196.9 at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, Petaluma, California. PRESENT: Comm. Koeni.tzer, Petty, Stanley. ABSENT: Comm. Battaglia, Styles. STAFF: William C. McGivern,- Director of Planning "Andy" Anderson, Assist. Planner. OTHERS: Robert Lipman, Councilman E'douard Robert, City Attorney Hal Wood, As'sis't:ant City Engineer John Nolan, Administrative Assistant. A. CONDIOTTI REZONING,: FILE Z2 -69 Chairman Paul R. Stanley reopened the public hearing to consider an application filed by A. Condiotti to rezone A. P. 7 -510 -8 (located on the northeasterly quadrant of the intersection of East Washington Street and Ely Blvd.) from an R -1 -6' -000 Zone or District to an R -M -1500 Zone or District. Mr. McGivern., Director of Planning, presented a favorable staff report. He stated that the area is designated for medium density development and the General Plan states that a mixture of dwelling types can be appropriate in some areas, therefore, multiple dwellings in the subject location could be in accord with the General Plan concept.. Mr. Lawrence H. Hannon, Pres. of the Board of Directors for the Petaluma Gardens Homes Association, addressed the Commission at this time. Mr. Hannon stated that the Association had held a meeting on January 23, 1969, to determine the feelings of the people residing in the area with regard to the rezoning pro- posal. The members are opposed to the rezoning for the following reasons: 1. Concern over the possible adverse effect the rezoning would have on property values due to the fact it might lessen the desirability of living in this particular area, and in addition it could increase traffic, etc. 2. The additional burden on school enrollment. 3. The traffic congestion .could be further compounded as a result of high density development. 4. Poor experience with the former developers of Petaluma Gardens .relative to not living up to their agreements for developing the area as planned. Mr. Roy Snyder, member of the Association, addressed the Commission, saying that when the people purchased'homes in the area it was with the understanding that it was planned for single family, single -story homes and with a 13 acre city'park. They were.also 'P. -2- Planning Commission 1/24/69 made aware of a proposed shopping center.' He further questioned ,Mr. McGivern's reference to a park site and its relationship to the rezoning request,. Mr;. Snyder again stressed his personal opposition to the proposed multiple zoning. Mr. McGivern displayed a copy of, the original tentative map in- corporating Petaluma Gardens Subdivision 1 & 2, which indicated the areas propos'ed for single family residential, multiple residential, commercial development: and a park site. Mr. Mc- Givern further stated that the site design for any multiple use would be reviewed by the Plannin,g'Commission; that the school load would definitely be a problem;.,and the reason the park site was mentioned in the staff report was because anytime a zoning is entertained, all the adjacent - and surrounding uses must be investigated to see if they are compatible with the proposed new use being introduced into the immediate area. Mr. Hannon again addressed the Commission stating that at the time homes were purchased the map which was displayed in the sales office, did not reflect a multiple development for the area, although it did show the park and a small neighborhood shopping center. Mrs. Beverly Gifford, 5 Gilrix Court,, voiced strong opposition to the proposed rezoning'. Councilman Bob Lipman addressed the Commission and expressed the following concern: 11 1although he, not opposed to this particular zoning request in itself, he is opposed to the degree of high density development that has been permitted in the past; that the people should have the right to plan the type of community in which they want to live; the critical situation of the intersection at'Ely Blvd. and East Washington Street; the amount of housing in Petaluma is beginning to rock the boat and making housing top heavy from a tax base standpoint; what will become of the ai:rport,; that parks.and open space should be pro- vided for much more than has been provided in the past; and that the General Plan deserves to be screened quite carefully in light of what is going on today." Mr. Art Condiotti spoke briefly on behalf of his application for the rezoning. Answering a question posed by Comm. Koenitze,r relative to the FAA requirements for airports, Mr. McGivern sated that they require a minimum setback distance of 250 ! from the cente:rlIne of the airport runway to the building structures. Although Chairman Stanley closed the public hearing at this time, the following addressed the Commission: Milton Green and Jerry Barndt. Comm. Koenitzer introduced a motion to rezone the area in question to R -M -150:0 based on the testimony presented. There was no -3- Planning Commission 1/24,69 second to the motion and Ch:.ai.rman Stanley stated that the only thing to do was to adjourn it to a meeting when the full membership of the Commission is present. Mr. McGivern. asked Mr. Edouard Robert, City Attorney, whether, because of a lack of a,second,: the motion was defeated or would it be plausible to entertain the motion at a time when the full Commission is:present,, but before Mr. Robert. could answer, Chair- man Stanley said Mr. Koenitze could take the chair and he would second the motion. C'ouncilm'an Lipman said if that were the case, then. Mr. Koenitzer could not make a motion at all, When questioned whether this procedure would-be legal, Mr. Robert said it would b.e inappropriate to have Mr. Koenitzer take the Chair but there was I nothing that he knows of that infers that the Chairman cannot relinquish the chair", but in the interest of orderly procedure and from the standpoint of people involved, he would suggest that the matter be held over until there is a full quorum. Comm. Koenitzer stated that it seemed to .him that the biggest fear expressed by the members of the Petaluma Gardens Homes Association was the possible loss of value to their property `but that he, as a real estate appraiser for the .last five years, could not recall . where this type of development, had caused any change in values. Mr. Bob Gaskill at this time questioned the legality of passing the gavel after a motion had already been made and further stated, in response to Comm. Koenitzer's statement regarding values, that there were different types of values,. A motion to continue matter to the next meeting on February 4 1969 was made by Comm. Koenitzer, seconded by Comm. Perry and agreed on by all members present. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned. Ch ai rman A t't'est.:� Director o'f Planning r r