HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/11/1995" e
17
u
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
1
1
1
1
1'
1
20
21
22
23
City Of Petaluma
Planning Commission Minutes
REGULAR MEETING July 11, 1995
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
ROLL CALL: Present: Feibusch, Rahman, Stompe, Thompson *, Torliatt, vonRaesfeld,
Wick
STAFF: Jim McCann, Principal Planner
Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner
Chairman
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of June 27, 1995 were approved with
corrections /additions to pages 2 and 3.
24
PUBLIC, COMMENT: David Mayer - 34 Vallejo Street - Correspondence has been
requested regarding Taco Bell - has not been receiving information in a timely manner;
met with Planning Director Tuft last week regarding litter pick -up, Taco Bell needs to
receive another letter; most recent letter regarding Use Permit conditions indicated an
29 inspection would be made on July 7, but it has not been done as of today; security is better.
30
31 Tom Siragusa - Spring Meadows 5; McBail -built subdivision - shoddy workmanship in
32 subdivision - 38 of 75 homes have serious defects; latent defects (7 -8 years old); windows
33 leaking (windows have water between panes), serious defects; McBail has not responded to
34 problems; company is still building homes in Petaluma, homeowners will probably be going
35 to court; driveways cracked, dryrot in showers; City has to have a policy regarding poor
36 workmanship; developers need to be held responsible.
37 Ricardo Lopez - Sprung Meadows 5; same problems /complaints with McBail Company
38 Subdivision; latent defects problems should be more closely monitored through Building
39 Inspectors /City of Petaluma; Jackie Speer has updated Business and Professional Code,
40 but has not gone far enough; invited City of Petaluma to make written comments to rewrite
41 of Business and Professional Code.
42 Principal, Planner McCann - Suggests presenting concerns to City Council - it appears,
43 however, to be a civil matter; McBail should be aware that City has been made aware of
44 these problems through public forums.
45 Commissioner Rahman - Letter writing campaign can be very effective.
46 Commissioner Torliatt - Staff should advise City Attorney that this will be brought up to
47 City Council.
48 Kurt Yeiter - Reminds Commission that if an item is not agendized, may not be able to be
discussed.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Feibusch - Concerns with comments from
the Visitor's Bureau on the trailblazer's signs. Commissioner Torliatt - Can we receive
M
1 packets earlier than Friday? Jim McCann - We try to get packets delivered as soon as
2 possible.
3
4 CORRESPONDENCE: Letter from Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce regarding
5 Trailblazer Signs; letter from Bob Marvin and Henry Hansel regarding Auto Plaza PCD
6 Amendment request; letter from Carol Whitmire regarding Bettman request.
7
8 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
9
10 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
I. MAXWELL SUBDIVISION; CHARLES AND PAULINE MAXWELL; "D"
STREET; AP NO. 019-120-045 AND 046 (hg).
Continued consideration and recommendation to the City Council on the adequacy
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a rezoning from the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) District to PUD, a PUD Development Plan and Design
Guidelines, and a Tentative Subdivision Map to divide the 19.6 acre site into
fourteen residential lots.
Continued from the June 13, 1995 meeting.
Principal Planner McCann presented the staff report - noted alternate plans reflect an
significant � issue which the Commission should consider a
increase in.densi beyond that anticipated in Annexati Resolution. This increase
er carefully - a recommendation
regarding an. increase in development yield will need to be offered to the City Council.,
The public hearing was continued:
Commissioners Stompe and Torliatt were not at June 13 meeting, but they reviewed all
materials and will be participating in the discussion.
SPEAKERS:
Commissioner Feibusch - the alternate plans presented by the project engineer do not
address concerns brought out at Tlanning Commission meeting of June 13.
Bonnie Diefendorf - Project Engineer - alternate plans were prepared after meeting with
Planning staff who indicated what they felt were Commission concerns, surprised that
Commissioner Feibusch indicates comments were not addressed; discussed 3 alternate
plans; grading minimized; drainage Ieft as natural as possible; Planning Director Tuft
sketched a map showing more lots than 14; indicated that higher density could be looked
at.
Chairman Thompson - apologized to Bonnie Diefendorf that staff indicated number of lots
be raised; staff mislike for Commission.
Principal Planner McCann - Clarified range of development density; discussed staffs
interpretation of meeting with Ms. Diefendorf - acknowledged that staff did sketch a plan
with an increased yield (some Commissioner's had 'indicated a willingness to consider an
increased. density) but. noted that staff stressed to the project engineer the need to develop
plans that presented. a reasonable range of alternatives for the Commission to consider..
Bonnie Diefendorf Did not mean to say that staff indicated only alternative was to add
more lots.
2
I; y,
1 Linda Rahman Feels Planning Commission is being asked to design this subdivision -
that's not our role.
Chairman Thompson - I agree, we should not be looking at all of these alternates and
creating a design.
Commissioner Rahman - Tonight we should make sure applicant knows exactly what
6 Commission concerns are: my concerns are - backs of houses should only face "D" Street if
7 design is excellent; won't support additional density (change in Annexation).
8 Commissioner Wick - Concerns - design issues; pedestrian trail along` D Street; private
9 common space preferable to public open space; Commissioner's desires are relaxed
10 considerably from staffs original recommendations; in regard to the question of increased
11 density - I was thinking that if the overall design of the subdivision warranted it, then
density credit could be given to the "remainder lands in the County, and a higher density
could be allowed (similar to a transfer of density) within site;; reiterated comments from
previous meeting regarding areas where development should be avoided - especially the
10 higher area toward SunnyCrest (lots 12 -14); suggested that development could be
1< intensified in the "bowl' area and in the upper "plateau" area; does not want to redesign this
subdivision; believes that the Commission has provided direction and identified areas of
concern - it is the project designer's responsibility to try to address these comments through
1 project design. ,
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - fees obligation to clarify Commission remarks from June 13
21 meeting if site is looked at as "upper" and "lower" sites - there has been improvement in
22 the design of the upper site, not, however, the lower site; an alternative plan which does not
23 rely on a public cul -de -sac should be explored; suggested extension of private roads parallel
24 to the creek (on unimproved road exists in this alignment already - ranch road), this
25 alignment would reduce grading impacts and would allow much improved house
? placement; very opposed to rear elevation orientation to D Street.
Commissioner Feibusch - creative landscaping for screening should be looked at to screen
new homes and improvements.
Bonnie Diefendorf - streets would probably need to be private (under Commissioner
30 vonRaesfeld's idea) without a cul -de -sac; discussed creative grading.
31 Commissioner Torliatt - it would be helpful to have road and proposed lots stated and
32 storypoles at the site; confused with purpose of the utility /water easement proposed by City
33 Engineering Department.
34 Principal'Planner McCann - clarified Engineering Department suggestion.
35 Commissioner Stompe - would prefer to see fronts of houses along D Street.
36 Commissioner Rahman - withdraws comments about backs of houses, agrees with
37 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - no backs should be allowed.
38 Mr. Maxwell - Applicant - did some more homework, looked at site again; does not feel
39 upper homes could be seen from D Street; leaving town you would see more of the
40 development than coming into town; homes would be 40 feet apart; getting frustrated,
41 wants to get a design approved.
42 Bonnie Bard - 126 Sunnyhill Road - hard- fought annexation, but resulting plan is very
43 good; annexation plan should not be amended, should not be allowed to have more than 14
44 lots; big chunk of land - be true to this district; public improvements are nice and fit into
45 neighborhood; wants good development; Commission should not be required to design
46 projects - expect developer to submit a good plan; do not amend annexation plan on a
47 casual tone, there will be significant opposition from neighborhood if any increase in
48 potential yield (density) is requested.
49 Barbara Holter - 22 Sunnyslope Road - attended all annexation meetings, assured that
density increase would not be allowed during those hearings; keep in mind that
neighborhood is all against increased density.
Direction from Commission - The Commission noted that they are:
3
462
1. Opposed to any increase in the development yield beyond that anticipated
and established through the Annexation Resolution;
2. Opposed to a subdivision .design which would result in the orientation of the
rear of buildings to public streets;
3. Opposed to the extension of utilities /services to or outside of the Urban
Limit Line.
4. Opposed to the development of homes at the upper portion of the property.
5. Opposed to "redesigning" the project for the applicant and expect the project
engineer to , address design concerns and input from the Commission.
6. Supportive of alternate street /access arrangements that delete the
reliance on a public cul -de -sac. Narrow private roads or accessways parallel
to Kelley Creek were suggested.
Public hearing was continued to a future meeting to be determined and noticed.
II. AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE; CITY OF PETALUMA acm).
Consideration of a request by the City of Petaluma to amend the Zoning Ordinance
to allow very limited "trailblazer" signs on public property.
Continued from the June 27, 1995 meeting.
Principal Planner McCann referenced the communication from the Chamber of Commerce
and the Petaluma Visitor's Program.
SPEAKERS:
Commissioner Rahman - believes someone should be. here from Chamberfot their input.
Commissioner .Feibusch - noted that he believes that the Visitor's Program would 'like to
provide additional input to staff and the Commission on this matter;. will contact Ms.
Pellegrini and Ms. Vann Gardner at Chamber of Commerce to discuss.
The public hearing was continued to the August 8, 1995 Planning Commission meeting.
NEWBUSINESS
PUBLIC: NEARING
III. BETTMAN ACCESSORY :DWELLING; THOMAS MCCARVILLE, ON BEHALF
OF ALFRED BETTMAN, 724 "I" STREET; AP NO. 008 -222 -015 (dh).
Consideration of a request for a .Conditional Use Permit to reclassify an existing 490
sq.ft. residence as an accessory dwelling so that a future primary detached single -
family residence can be constructed on the same lot in an R -1 -6,500 zoning district.
Principal Planner McCann presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - requested clarification of parking standards.
0
463
1 Commissioner Wick - a single - family home could be built on this lot if the existing unit did
not have a kitchen, correct?
Principal' Planner McCann - Yes, existing unit would not be considered to be a dwelling
unit if it did not have cooking facilities - it would become an accessory building; the
principal residence could then be built anywhere on the lot in compliance with Zoning
6 Standards.
7 Thomas McCarville - designer - All setback, parking requirements can be met with current
8 proposal neighbors have. concerns with privacy, more theoretical rather than practical - site
9 is bordered by mature trees; good in -fill project; would rather not demo existing unit - good
10 . condition; objects to window removal or relocation in (new unit) bedrooms; existing sewer
11 line would not be impacted; only one tree will be removed (palm tree).
Carol Whitmire - Planning Consultant representing owners at 7211 Street; new unit would
impact privacy of neighboring homes; existing trees are deciduous; .new ,impervious surface
It will be substantially increased - drainage problems already exist; issues all relate to new
unit; parking requirements concern; neighbors, would not object to addition to existing
1 M t
45 small unit and possible second small unit at back.
1 Commissioner Torliatt - there is a large two -story house at 723 H Street - what is size of
that house?
Judie Purcell - 727 H Street - new homeowner in Petaluma; there is already an adjoining
20 lot with a second unit - loss of privacy; severe drainage problems exist; moved to Petaluma
21 for open space and large lots.
22 Elmer Hensick? - 731 H Street - Concerns with privacy, drainage.
23 Debi Lowis - 607 8th Street? - small lot, concerns with privacy; existing two -story house in
24 neighborhood - set at front of property, not a privacy issue; when purchased home, layout
25 of backyard was very important; sewer easement - existing sewer works fine, not interested
in spending money to upgrade; will negatively. impact existing homes; this type of structure
will be in everyone's backyard; look at other possibilities in terms of development that
would not have such a strong impact on neighborhood.
Chris Jernstedt - 722 I Street - regarding parking - very tight as proposed, on- street parking
30 will probably be utilized; hazardous situation already to exit onto I Street; street cleaning
31 and trash pick -up will be a problem with more parking on street; concerns with sewer
32 easement; privacy issue - heart of argument; purchased this lot because large lot, more
33 privacy; any windows on new unit will look directly into his windows; believes two -story
34 house on,H Street is too large; would like to see new proposed house to be built at front of
35 property;, doesn't believe foundation of existing unit is continuous perimeter.
36 Commissioner Rahman - (to Mr. Jernstedt) How many square feet is your house (answer
37 1,100 sq.ft.).
38 Dick Powers - 729 I Street - John Graves - 728 I Street - and a third person on I Street -
39 wanted their presence known; concerns regarding parking, traffic.
40 John Graves - 728 I Street - concerns with parking.
41 Chris Geiger 607 H Street - concerns with size of new unit - large two -story unit will be
42 put in middle of many' backyards; if it was scaled down, concerns would go away.
43 Commissioner Rahman - If- nothing was on this lot now, could a unit of this size be built?
44 Principal Planner McCann - Yes, no discretionary permits would be required.
45 Commissioner Rahman - Seems like main issue is location of proposed house - concerns
46 would not- be as much if larger unit was on front of lot.
47 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - question regarding cross -lot drainage how will this be
48 accomplished?
49 Principal Planner McCann - there is a condition that prohibits no lot -to -lot drainage.
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - unique aspects to this proposal; logic to saving small unit,
appropriate solution would be moving existing unit to rear and building larger unit at front;
would be a lot better project - would solve large amount of problems for neighbors and
himself.
Commissioner Torliatt - Has applicant considered moving existing unit to rear?
5
2M
Thomas McCarville - topography of lot indicates large unit should be built at back (:more
level area) of lot.
Commissioner Stompe - agrees with. vonRaesfeld's suggestion of flipping smaller unit to.
rear.
Commissioner Rahman - was ready to approve this project with design help from SPARC;
no problem with approving existing unit as an accessory dwelling.
Principal Planner McCann - it appears that the. Commission's concerns relate to the future
home unit, not existing unit being: reclassified as an;accessory unit; suggests that pursuant to
Section 21 -300 and 21 -408 of the Zoning Ordinance it is reasonable to place conditions,
restrictions, etc. on the request to address Commission concerns.
Commissioner Thompson - (to 'applicant and designer) would you be willing to return. with
redesign to address concerns of neighborhood?
Thomas McCarv - If two -story house was built at front of lot, more privacy would be
lost.
Commissioner Thompson - have you met with neighbors? Maybe that should be tried;
would you be willing to work with neighbors?
Thomas McCarville - No, would rather- work with Planning Department, not neighbors.
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - problems with accessory dwelling on front of lot.
Commissioner Stompe - sewer line easement precludes, building over existing sewer line.
Thomas McCarville looked at options, feels proposal is best one.
Principal Planner McCann - answers questions regarding sewer line and easements.
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - why are we discussing civil matters (sewer easements) here?
Commissioner Thompson - couldn't this matter be continued to discuss sewer easement,
talk to neighbors?
Thomas McCarville - conditions dictate building large unit at rear of lot; would come back
with information regarding sewer line; maybe that question should be a condition.
A motion was made by Commissioner vonRaesfeld and seconded by Commissioner Wick
to deny this project without prejudice.
Above motion withdrawn.
The public hearing was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 25 to allow
additional information regarding the location of the sewer line and corresponding building
restrictions.
IV. AUTO PLAZA PCD AMENDMENT; MR.. ROBERT' BENSON; 1250 AUTO
CENTER DRIVE; AP NO. 007-412-065; FILE NO. PCP 0.164 (hg).
Consideration of a Negative Declaration, pursuant to CEQA and of an amendment
to the Petaluma Auto Plaza PCD to include full service restaurants (a diner) as. a
conditionally permitted use on. a 1.25 acre portion of Lot 3 located at 1250 Auto
Center Drive.
Principal Planner McCann presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Commissioner Rahman - Why wouldn't restaurant be allowed to advertise on Auto Center
Sign.
me
465
1 Commissioner Stompe - questions regarding sales tax generation.
Principal Planner McCann - sales tax generation could be greater than an auto dealership.
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - should this whole question be discussed through SPARC,
Planning' Commission, City Council` - both design, and land use now before an amendment
recommended?
6 Commissioner Wick - Questions regarding Auto Center Development Agreement.
7 Principal Planner Yeiter - Dealerships existing are doing well, build -out has gone slower
8 than expected.
9 Commissioner Feibusch - will this be precedent setting?
10 Principaf Planner McCann Yes.
11 Robert Benson - Applicant - to answer questions.
Commissioner Feibusch - Why would this restaurant want to serve beer and wine, being
1 surrounded by auto dealerships.
1 Robert Benson - Many people expect beer and wine at a restaurant.
1 Commissioner Torliatt - questions regarding relationship of this site to the proposed Nissan
Dealership.
1 Robert Benson - Answers questions regarding lot size, etc.; researched 50's diner designs,
will be very attractive to Petaluma.
David Maier - 34 Vallejo Street - Comments regarding sales tax revenue; need to stick to
deal made with Development Agreement; Auto Center was built with (some) public funds -
21 this project would be a bad precedent; tax revenue projections are not as rosy as the
22 finance director stated.
23 Robert Benson - Has not received one penny of City money; loss of this acre will not cause
24 more or less cars to be sold.
25 Principal: Planner McCann - There has been no public monies spent on Auto Center.
Commissioner Stompe - Good use for this small area; use very convenient for this area -
many people will be able to walk.
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - in support of project, but feels design is an important
component of the use which requires a much higher level of attention and detail.
30 Commissioner Torliatt - problems with Auto Center PCD being changed to allow a
31 restaurant!
32 Commissioner Wick - City entered into City /Public /Private agreement with auto
33 dealerships -
34
35 The public hearing was closed.
36
37 A motion was made by Commissioner Rahman and seconded by Commissioner Stompe to
38 recommend to the City Council that the previously adopted Mitigated Negative
39 Declaration for the Petaluma Auto Plaza is adequate and to recommend approval of the
40 amendment to the PCD Development Program to include a full service restaurant as a
41 'conditionally permitted use on the southerly 1.25 acre of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 261 based
42 on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed in the staff report.
43
44 COMMISSIONER STOMPS: Yes
45 COMMISSIONER FEIBUSCH: No
46 COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
47 CHAIRPERSON THOMPSON: Yes
48 COMMISSIONER WICK: No - Believes amendment is inconsistent with the intent of the
49 partnership that the City and the property owners entered into - shouldn't amend standards
04�
when project is behind development schedule - request is premature.
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: No (believes lot could be split to accommodate 2 auto
dealership's)
COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes
7
1, xlp.
Findings for a PCD Amendment:
1. The PCD Development Program as, amended_ to permit a full service restaurant as a
conditionally permitted use on a 1.25 acre portion of Lot 3 of Parcel Map 261
conforms to the General Plan's land, use ,designation of: Thoroughfare Commercial
because it provides a complementary service /attraction (food) for the city -wide and
regional customer(s) desired by the dealerships.
2. The proposed amendment will serve the public necessity, convenience and general
welfare by providing a needed service for the benefit of employees and customers of
the Auto Plaza area.
3. The proposed amendment will serve the public convenience and general welfare by
potentially reducing employee /customer vehicle trips, particularly during lunch
hour.
4. The existing streets (Auto Center Drive, Benson Way, Industrial. Avenue) and
arterials (Corona Road, Petaluma Boulevard North) are suitable and adequate to
serve the proposed use and the anticipated traffic which will be generated thereby.
5. The PCD Development Program amendment to include a full service restaurant as
a conditionally permitted use on a specific 1.25 acre site .is appropriate in size, and
location to the existing and future dealerships, and to the overall economic
objectives of the Petaluma Auto Plaza PCD.
6. The PCD Development Program amendment to include a full service restaurant as
a conditionally permitted use, as conditioned, on a specific 1.25 acre site is
appropriate in size and location, and the overall planning purposes intended;, and
that the development of a restaurant pursuant to the provisions of the PCD
Development Program will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding
areas.
7. The amendment to the Auto Plaza PCD to expand uses. allowed within the PCD will
provide needed service uses for the customers and employees of the Auto. Plaza.
8. The _ proposed project has complied with the .requirements of CEQA pursuant. to
Section 15162 of the Guidelines, through preparation and adoption of a Mitigated
Negative., Declaration on December 5, 1988 (Resolution No. .88 -387), which
addressed the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of
the Auto Plaza related to potential impacts to: archaeological, historic., and
biological resources; aesthetics; traffic and circulation conditions; and flooding
conditions. This proposed amendment to the PCD Development Program to allow
as a conditional use full service restaurants does not introduce the potential for
significant environmental effects not addressed through the previously adopted
negative declaration. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA
Guidelines, no further environmental review is necessary in conjunction with this
proposal, and no further environmental analysis- is necessary.
Conditions. of PCD Development Program Amendment
1. City staff shall amend the. Petaluma Auto Plaza PCD Development Program under
CONDITIONAL USES (Section IV) to include: "A full service restauranl: on a
specific 1.25 acre site; a portion of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 261 (see Exhibit A for
location purposes).
M
2. City staff shall amend the Petaluma Auto Plaza PCD Development Program to
include a provision under Si &page (Section XXI) which prohibits the use of the 60'
free standing lighted digital sign for restaurant advertisements.
3. Design of the future building shall reflect the highest level of design attention and detail
to reflect the prominence of this site.
10 ,
V. NESSCO LANDSCAPING CUP AMENDMENT; EDWARD NESSINGER, 855 NO.
MCDOWELL BLVD.; AP NO. 048-080-020 (dh).
Consideration of a request for an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit
F< to allow outdoor storage of landscaping materials in conjunction with a wholesale
business in an M -L Zoning District.
laoZ Principal Planner McCann presented the staff report.
19
20 The public hearing was opened.
21
22 SPEAKERS:
23
24 Commissioner Stompe - Why would retail sales not be allowed at this site?
Principal Planner McCann - Retail sales not allowed in this Zoning District.
Commissioner Torliatt Why is staff recommending approval of this Amendment even
though there have been many violations of existing Use Permit Conditions.
Commissioner Thompson - How could staff administratively approve a storage yard on
29 McDowell?
30 Principal Planner McCann - The approved use is very limited, equipment storage (only)
31 approval was made based on written input from applicant; the current use is well beyond
32 the scope: of the approval.
33 Commissioner Thompson = This is an inappropriate use at this location on N. McDowell -
34 across from homes.
35 Commissioner Torliatt - use is inconsistent with standards applied to other uses in the City.
36 Principal :Planner McCann - Based on the limited use described by applicant, staff found
37 the use to be appropriate at this site - the U -Haul project was a different type of use; this
38 use is an interim use; the administratively approved use is not what is going on at the site -
39 this has been discussed with the applicant; Planning Commission can see what applicant is
40 requesting�because its already there.
41 Commissioner Torliatt - Confused regarding existing Use Permit conditions.
42 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Questions regarding landscaping; plan does not show impact
43 of 25' setbacks.
44 Martin Gavriloff - Property owner - easement over this property.for telephone trunk lines;
45 storage units were built prior to being in City Limit; property zoned M -L, probably should
46 be rezoned; open storage is allowed with existing Conditional Use Permit; landscaping
47 looks better than fencing, has replaced landscaping three times; owned property for 30
48 years.
Ed Nessing_er - Business owner - working two jobs trying to get ahead; generates lots of
revenue to City monthly; has had vandalism in the storage yard; has been very successful
operation ;" did not know that a 25 foot setback was required in the beginning; objects to 25
foot setback required now.
3 Commissioner Rahman - What is your plan - is this still planned as an interim use?
9
EM
34
35
36
37
38
Ed Nessinger - Nothing zoned on east side for this type of use.
Martin Gavnloff - Has a one - sided lease with applicant - he can end lease at any time.
Ed Nessinger 15 employees not much that can be done with this ;property because of size.
stored, on property only; and that application sitedoes not allow etailgsalfor job overages would be
es.
Ed Nessinger -This is a great location for this type of business.
Commissioner Torliatt - Use is not in compliance with General Plan / Zoning policies.
Commissioner Rahman - Could we approve this with a shorter term?
Ed Nessinger -.s uggests that material won't be higher than;six-foot fence.
Commissioner Rahman - Is there adequate parking for 15 employees at this site?
Ed Nessinger - Employees take company -owned (8) trucks home at night and they carpool.
Principal Planner McCann - use is becoming much more intense than existing use permit
allows; 25 foot : setback requirement would not render this site useless; manner in which
materials are stored is in conflict with existing use permit.
Commissioner Torliatt - What are you storing on the site?
Commissioner Feibusch - can some materials be moved around to make it look,. better?
Martin Gavriloff - Could use this lot (including the 125' setback) for storage purposes.
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Site looks better than it did a year ago; with some rearranging
of site, use might be acceptable; add some landscaping now at main entry; pull fence back
at front and add some landscaping (north end).
Commissioner Thompson - `Would like to see accurate site plan and a landscape plan
before approving this amendment.
Ed Nessinger - will move debris boxes.
The landscape plan shall include:
25' setback (does not. need to I be landscaped), but needs to be clear of
storage.
site plan to scale - show areas of proposed uses.
fence at entrance (both sides) to be pulled back 10 -15' and landscaped.
This item continue t o the fir st item Planning Commission meeting of July 25..1995.
ADJOURNMENT 12:35 - Wednesday - 7/12/95
min0711 / plan6l
10