HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 8364 N.C.S. 11/13/1978PLIC :mi 11-14-78
•
8364
RESOLUT,hOTQ DENYIN,; ',THEAPPEAL OF SCENIC ,,AND PROPERTIES,
IN CISI ION DI SAP=
C: FROM THE DE ON OP THE G COMMISS
b
PLANNIN
PROVINGON .FbR4 U.D, REZONhIGi(�APN;o. 8X530
0 4'-"
McNear' Marior
}
.1'NAL
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL,VAN _-.. - --- - -----..................TrVILLIAM R.,_ --- ----------- - --and;
ND BOND.
.. ,
---, ---- --•-------- at a
SECONDED BY COUNCiT I\�AN -_-__ R
U
ADJOURIVEeting of the',Q ty Council of the
------ ................ ---- ---- - -- ----
_D
City of Petaluma. on theL..___'__'1'3 -- day of._ ember .............. 197_
th k �t Tdov
-:
WIiEREAS',, r th'd Petaluma City Rlann �ng ,.COnimi=scion on `September
-" diad , •, .. � � ,
a ar l
6,. 1978, deny the. application of Scenicf Land Properties, Inc.
.to, recla's"sift' AP `rdo 8 53'0 Oro `from 'study zone: to. P:. U. D.. by its
Reso�lution -N61. Z �`2�4, ,7d8, and �• °
WHEREAS'-, the applicant' made timely appeal to .the City Council
pursuant` to the p-,r0_V .sion,s of .Ordi'nance No4 1072 N.:.:C.S. ,. as
.amended; and;
WHEREAS ; the' mat"ter ;was `duly noticed and regularly heard and
a public hear 'n,a was conducted on November' 6n 1978.,, and the public
g g matter .was thereafter continued for deci
u
hearing bean. closed.the
cion to Novmeber' �13, 197,8'; . and,
WIiEREAS. at said , ublic. hearing the City Co'une•il considered
p� the record s ;by the Planning" Commscon as well as docu-
a ubmitted� ,
k" p y applicant, the
mentary and' testimonial evidence resented,. b. " the,
city staff and.othere ,inte`rested parties,,. .
NOW,, THEREFORE"-, ,"A, TT RESOLVED tl%at, t
he Council does hereby'
find after cons`ideririg a,l"1' the evi`der ce submitted n'.,the case.
' d does not meet the
that the applicant s application as submitte
c" d s' 19-900
1.9,-9 a P",.:U D�. in.. Sect -ion
criteria, for � ordinance, as stated.
through 01.4 of Ordinance No.. 10,72, N. C; S . as amended, and
4 - indsl the de.f'cierrcies: to be {.as o1_lrows.
the Coun:cif further. f"' f'
Section '19-9.:00; ,Ord`
1 nanee N:o..;' 107.2' N C ,Sr..',as `amended:
The plan; doe''s 'no;t result 'in a more" de"s;;rable ;`use of. land .or a
' al environment .than would. be p oss,ibl
e.under any
better physic
. singler
zoning district or ,combination, of';zoning districts.
2. , Se,d;tiori :1:9-9`O l 3'c, , ,Ordinance TJ'o .. 10 7.2 N C ,_S . as -amended.
The natural Wand, scenic qu;alitwes of the site, are ;not p;r,otected
I
with.adequate available public and private spaces designated
on the unit, development plan.
,3. The application is not consistent with the following
City policie.s.j regulations and res'o'lutions:
a. Resolution No. 81-7.4 'N,.;G.S,, that the design
take.. full, advantage of -the topographic features
,on. the site.
b. Environmental Design Plan element,.pI -the.. General
Plan', that development, on,,la,nds steeper than 50
insofar as possible be,. limited. to planned unit
deve 16�' C'
,pent incorpor,ati-ng' the luster principle
in order to reduce the amount of street and other
f , � structures; in_ra� st , ruc ures; and -fit. buildings to. the most
suitable buildInq sites with 'the 'minimum of qradinq.
c Petaluma, Municipal Code Section '20. 32. 320 - that
the s'ubdivision besodesigned as to preserve the
.g.r.eatest -amount of existling� on-site vegetation in-
cluding trees with . a trunk diameter -of 4" or greater
.,and other natural ground cover;.-.
d. Reso-fution, No,. 8012 N. C.'S.= that the. design of any
s.ubdivisIon on said,p4rc.ei -retain its parklike
character to the greatest (degree, possible and that
environmental con.,s,ideration .be appli-ed to the
reatest degree poasib,le consistent with reason-
able use of the propet,ty.
4. Public -testimony by industrial neighbors and private
citizens indicate a strong disapproval of the plans because of
the lack of co' inpatibility of the plan a:s-submitted with the sur-
rounding uses.
BE'IT FURTHERRESO.LVED that based upbn-the foregoing findings
the appeal of,'Scenic 'Land Properties,_I-hpl.—from the action of the
Planning Commi'Ls'sion in Resolution No.. Z ,24-78 ought, to' be,denied,
and the action
on of the Planning Commiasion, ought to be upheld,,
denying-approval-to'th,e application for- the P.U.D. zone as sub-
=mitted by the a.,Ppli,dant, and
IT IS s6 o,R_DE-RhD.
under the.; power, and Authority -;conferred upon, this Council by the Charter. of said City.
I hereby certifythat the fokegoing-Resoluiionwasduly and: regularly introduced and
adopted by the Council of the City, of Petaluma, on the .11t1a ......................................
day of. Nomber 19 7.8--:-,---> by the following, votes:,
......... November
AYES: Councilmen Bond, Harberso'ni. H,i.l,li-qoss,. Perry, and Mayor.Putnam.
NOES: Councilmen Balshaw and Cavanagh