HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/19/1975jt
�PETAL.UMA CITS
pREGULAR'MEET]
+' CITY 11COUNCIL
PLEDGEJ
i
r 'I' TROLL CALL:
,STAFF:
Comm, Wri � Hi'lligoss Horcza Popp
I Bond
Waters g
ehl e �
nin Dire'
J , Plan �g
Dennis Bo etor
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CORRESP
6
u
• �
CONSENT C
CALENDAR:,
esi n review f '
Site .de sign g ' ` or the proposed :El Toro Mexican '
Restaurant submitted by ,George Martinez to be :located at
228 Petaluma Blvd. North. (Recommendation of the
Architectural &i Si-te Design Review Committee for•approval
with.- conditions as deter - mined' on August 11, 1975.)
J
11
YOUNG & :ST OLS -
Re.quest by Stokes: &Associates for a, one-year time
C-N REZONING TIME
extension to allow the complet =ion of plans and drawings
EXTENSION,;
for the commercial . development proposed for property,
previously rezoned C -N located at So. McDowell Blvd. and
Casa Grande Road.
D. D,. 'TO OG -
Public Hearing to consider. the request for modification of
R USE
the conditions of Use Permit U3 -73 'and site design review
PERMIT U3 -173
conditions for- the Youngstown) &Mobilehome Park located at.
MODIFICATIONS:
950 No. McDowell Blvd.
DEBEL REZONING 29 -75 -
.:Consideration of requests by Mr. &.Mrs. Andre DeBel for
EIQ EVALUATTON &.
property located at 161 Grant. Avenue as follows:
:PRIVATE STREET
REQUEST:
.1) EIQ 'evaluation for the proposed project.
2) Public Hearing to consider rezoning from R- 1 7 6 ,,500
to R- 1- 20,000 .Ds
3) 'Request for private `street to serve three parcels:.
I
ADJOUWk - , 7 NT
_ II
� I
� 1
PETALUNIA k
REGULAR Ml
I CITY COUN(
�� t IV „ °PREISENTI
P ill
ABSENT''
r
;
I ' :STAFF ' 3
M. 'I N U l E- ;S
Y PLANNING COMMISSI l �; AUG
]i
IT ,p � � T
�. 1 i ,; i rl„ , � ' � I ;I�, , � � III OS'P .M9, 1975
j
TING d` 7 3,
IL' CHAMBERS', CITY.r IIALLI; CALIFORNIA
µ; FYI I' 6u „°
Comm ' '' Head'; Waters, ''Wright
Comma r H'f - i'go'ss opp' Horciza2
�I' Dennis Boehl e' :Planrn'ng D'i 'rector +
J
' i
absence
Because of �� n`ce of
- boy h e' e 'hairman Vi.ce Chair �he�mo;tion e seconded
that Coimn ' the
act as Chairman ,.pro tem for the'meet l ° was
ng �
right and all votes were in the ,affrmativ,ej .M
by Comm. Wright
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The.;minu`tes for. July 29, 19 „75' and August 5, 1975, were
approved' as submitted,.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Mr'.' Boehij'e advised the Commission_ of a request.by Alan, ,
'L. - Ferris of 11 -78 Ramona Lane to cons -truct an, 8 -foot fence,
on.his r,e_ar property line. The staff report was briefly
reviewed. Comm. Waters stated he had viewed the site and
fence ight be "of some.,benefit for the appli
an "8 -' foot m
cant in of fording his ;p'roperty'more privacy.
Comm. Weight made amotion to approve the 8 -foot fence
as requested. The motion was 'seconded by Comm. Waters.
AYES 4 NOES 01~ ABSENT 3
Comm., 'Waters a,sked•what - could be done with regard to the
fence on °Caulfielel Lane` that had been.knocked down in a
'car ,accident over a 'year sago and had not been replaced
or ;removed. Mr. Eoehlje advised that he would check
i
into the matter.
E ENDAR,
CONS NT CAL
a� motion t : o ac p m t „
i Head' made ,1, of
t 't ew
th r e nm A
rchiµtect " rf
I
g cye
Gommittnda
& Site Desi nl Revi'' ee �Pfor
El T ro R aurant r posed by
approual, o �il�u„
�, lib 228 luina
to b'e �ted' at Peta Blvd: North,
GeorgelMar.tinez' e loca
,
with o, a royal ast recommended.. , The motion
Pp
was scondi"tions
econded b Comm -. Wri ht.
AB .NOES 0
AYES 4 I I ENT” 3'
v S
. I` 1
„ -
Y E� C N.
Y OUNG , &, STOK
� q y tok "es & tAssoc i 1,
The es t b` ' ,. S ates for a� one -year timed
I IOPd,
ME
REZ ING ti ME
_ �
r sion to 'a11ow' the +ion '[of plans and drawirigs l'''
ii
�
r complet
I , L�
i ;I
r commer:eas develo ment'� ro osed for r
P
fotethe. o`perty
P
9
,,: 6.. .P
located !at So . P4cDowe'il' tl'vd ,, . and, Casa Grande 'Road "was
„
briefly reviewed.
s
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes.,. August 19, 1975
Comm.. Head made a motion, to ; grant. the; requested one -year
time extension. Comm. Waters questioned why the appli-
cant had not been notifie a of the ; deadline date of
_
July, 1,6, 1975;' as prescribed, "by the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Bo,ehlj,e replied that there was some confusion due to
the fact that'the ap,pli' able 'clause''had` of been in. the
Zoning Ordinance for, a period of .t.ime,:and therefore did
not apply to - all com"rcial r;ezon rigs... He assured the
Cdnudi sidh that other•rezonings..of this nature had been
reviewed to insure eompl'ance. Comm Waters seconded
.;
.ahe ;m6ti.on for, app o,f the, one' -year time : extension
until July. 16 '1976.:
AYES-•' 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3,%
D'.. ;D.. YOUNG - REQUEST
The Commission w a's..advised tha only Comm. Waters had been
EOR'tS,E PERMIT U3 -
present at the: Architectural &' Site. @esign •Review 'Committee
&: ,SITE DESIGN MODIF�I- � �
,meetin on Au us 5 � _,,, . he had .
g g, t ,18, 1 -97 and d' requested that t he:
CATIONS
matter be referred to the entire Commission for action.
;Mr.,. Art LaFranAi', attorney fo the applicant, informed the
;,.
Commission that they were aware of the fact that two new
Commissioners. were present' and realized that the• Commis'si'on.,
Might wisli.to defer the matter until more members' of the
Commission could attend who had taken action on the Use
„
..Permit and site design iii.. its .origindl form. He added that
if it was the desire o;f the Commission', the applicant, was
willing to delay, consideration fors tca&.'weeks.. Mr;:, LaFranclii
also advised the Commission that - the requested modifi'cati'on
for the ;deletion of , the fence,',adj,acent to PG &E and replace-
ment :with dense landscape screening, would take additional
time for• review and coordination` by PG &E architects and
the appl;can;t's, architect; '
The Public Hearing was,opened. Members Of' the audience
were advised-they could sp`eak,if they so desired :or, if
they could not.attend the next meeting. No comments were
offered.
,.
Comm., Wright ,made a motion to ,continue the Public Hearing
until the ,:next, regular meeting o•f, the Planning Commiss -ion.
on September .3, 19 The. motion was seconded by Comm.
Water s .
AYES 4 NOES "0 AaSENT. 3
,
�
t '
Petaluma City Planning Commission'Minu.tes, August 19; 1975
DEBEL '.REZONING.. Z9, - 75, . � . The request for,- rezoning. from,,R -1- 6.,,5'00 to R- 1- 20,000 and
EIQ EVALUATION.' &PRIVATE the,reques.t for' a private street to serve three of :the
STREET'REQUEST four lots being created'by; the.;subdivision of the property
was:briefly,reuiewed�: Mr., Boehlje explained that tlhe City
4 g....:. tion of app roval of
had re ues;ted the r:ezoni.n as a condi
n ,
t in. -more arcels tha
-the parcel �ma
,, resul t- P °•po r:event "nutheepaiVatee cou
r serve ^.
c A al
°w :The location , of '„ the - s chool', in r�elat to the 'propefty was ^
r.• 1 On
clari f ied i„ Lomm � Wa,ters' quest oiled ; if the -pr t street
„ Bel clarified
• ; I I
E � vate a
:l ry ed cant was
at the average slo � propose
exist, l tol e�of the r1U e street Ot Mr. De I' 11 atd
that.
•,.' I, „fi a ,., a at Ii P n
1
g � i J ,Commissio
R w •i�r • private �str�eet WO beV1 aUl
aOUldthe , 2� radel. MY BOe ed W 1.
vised the, n
�I d , 1 e1 ad ith• asphalt.
beral h
ti :.
that Ill w P
a o-1 I'IMaintenanc,e��wouldd be covered bye an a and would be
,I • 'I
;^ I ni; the res onsibij`i,t of the ,indiwidu o, received `
p yl a� is wh service
{ 1 I II
from the pr e
§trepb
I„
a o ” d ,„: ' ore a nearby
, The�' Public Hearing, ,� s e
P � .!.i Luc�lle Elm
., �,
;.p � rt owner' stated ,her concern that d`eveloP " ment's in
R t he r ro s o'sedeeubd� pis on again rais'e
.taxes:. Mrs Elmore ad�is`e it ij 1 ,.. d e'"rn was
p iin taxes.
I that her
only cone
1 F She felt that if
this, sabdivision the ;same privi lege should
be granted to,. her' parcel of_ . property, since it would be a
good selling point for her if she had prior approval that
two.houses could be placed.on her lot. The size of her-
e -
lot ;was ,questicined• - : and she replied, that she did not know
.the . exa size,..
Chairman Bond explained to•her that the Commission must lit
„�•
look at one piece of property at a time and had no ,say on
the natter.lof the-. tax structure Ile also advise that
d�eveloP m men � � „ I ro er t �, , - PP l in the I.
_ sron •could,• not hinder th e`�' a l��cants
t J of their: p I. ky m
P I�G� � ur � .p
, I . i' hank , , �i a�
{t I M F 1
! n § , 1
yl �. °,Mr F' Dettling, 127,Kel�lyl L'" n'e; asked ,how wide "h the r
W .I , p' �i I>" �w , v t, ill 4, I 1
� p hl. e re lie ,, th would prove
de the 1�iiia inte
� �,�,� '�l �,����� �,�'ynance =te IIIMrr&Boewould, by �a??d wh at the street') would "be•
l II: III 2 t6et ww de an "' .wound I be maintained', b the p y,
ownera.;. t4r . d g .. ys' on that 'lie"
4 ro ert
11 nimi si h _ •
l han' that ha
r 4' De�ttlin ad sed the Co '
1 �dl
u,,r iil po ma =3 or o,b� ect�ions other t the rezon n g ml,ght „
,possibly raise his ,propeity taxes;,i; Chairman ,Bond replied bP"
" that „,the Commission''s,i �conaic�eration,iwas only to deter
f 1 w
h'e a ro osal'� was an acne tap' p
min
B6eh1` P g P ls”' d
k
P ever o _ment,; Mr
Je. advised' that 1 rezonin fr to R -1 20 Q
,'OO
om R 1 6,,
Wou1d in effect_ y lac
e reater restrictio son the land, -
�. •I since thel'''property. c'ould. `be developed into approxinately
ten lots under the current zoning - if the applicant so
desired.;.
--3-
I,
I
Petaluma City Planning Commission - Minute "s, - August 19, 19
•
'iof
�.•
' - Another ' m - ember the° audience!_ quest - fQftedt thet `relation of .
d
the ro,'ect to the' ma of tm v �, ,which calls
p J p y
Paster
for; a street to be ° utr tlitou h "fro _ 1 '
1 Olive Street to Grant
Avenue and the poss'ibil'ity creating landlocked' parcels��
t
unle'ss.' such.:, s.treet� is`' phut through. i r. Boenlj'e replied
that the - General Plan .and EDP :do not show any such public
:.•. street extendiri•g th. -ough the lot. lie explained. that the
top'o,g-r;aphy created a prolAem, and, that the rezoning to
R- '1- 20,000 also reduced the -ne'ed - for -. a public street
through that area.
Lucille Elmore q uestioned if ,there would be a street lead-
ing, to park pro.p.osed'' behind Grant School and .mentioned
_
the current traffic .problem on Grant .Avenue,. Mr.. ;Boehl,je.
.
` :stated he was not aware of a, park .in,that area, and
invited. Mrs. Elmore 'to come in to the' office to discuss
'the matter and 'also to discuss her property...
Th Public Hearing Was closed.
C W_r.ight questioned', what aspects were! considered in
an Environmental Impact Q uestonnaire "A c was fur-
e infoopy
nished for his review and Mr!. Boeh1J rmed him tha
normally the EIQ is reviewed by the Fire Chief, the Chief
Buildin g P g Ins. ectOr .�CitY En ineer sometimes- the Sonoma
Count Water Agency, and : other .agencies 'if ,necess'ary.
'' CommHead made a motion= -to direct the P 'Director
to prepare :and''post, a Negative Declaration for the
project: The motion was seeonded'by Comm.,Wat'ers.
' AYES: 4 NOES' 0 'ABSENT 3'
Mr, Boehlje clarified'that''the proposed ; rezoning, was in -.
;. _e,
conformance with the G`erier -al. 'Plan. °and EDP,. Thdensit ,y
factor was discussed, and it .;was noted that the proposed
density of 4 - units 'f'or 2. acres was considerably lower
than. the designated 5: units -per, acre for this area
The; Public Iiearing was ,opened. Mr.. ,DeBel informed the
Commission 6at'the_rezoning was reques <ted because- the
City desired a .minimum of 209-0,000 square foot', lots. to
`reduce the amount of possi units in ".the area.
Mrs.. Elmore questioned what, the difference in footage was
for' the` proposed' - rezoning. 11r. Bo.ehlj,e explained that
R 1 -6, 5'00 zoning 'called; ,,for , a. minimum of 6,500 sq . ft.
e
i,- p - , zoning called for
R l.ots 0
:a minimum of 100'. x 130" deep".
The Public Hearing was closed:,.
4_
. r
I. „ t
u �
°
II
I�
h I
h °I II
11
,
I' a d' I I
�
` I l tahuma Ci� ,'
Pe Y
I
Planriiri Commssio' Miriul Au us: 1 u „
tes
g . gt 19, " 19 o a
d
t ". , �1 o ,V It �I�I
g o„ 5 q.: I .
con f ^51 6�
I ' I Wr2ght q,luestioneoll'h,?f ` Lo � sist,
I I „4
1 .�' ,' � n' I
,, I I lanswerledd,�he later, ° to u R� =1 ,6y5 � �� �i Boehlj e
b
at would be os sible onl if a
would be provided, and portions of'the other lots would
have to be purchased to provide the public street.
Comm 110i made a motion to r- eeommend approval of the
proposed DeBel rezoning to the City Council. The motion
was.seconded,by Comm. Wright.,
AYES„ „ 4 NOES- 0' ABSENT -;'3 "
� I
i I
B ehl e: eiterated tha l p vate
I , I' r t the;'
of I I ri
� Mr h J
s. t
tree, , would be ° ' _• ..
„ : ,:
bII ��
�I
� p I I . � � _
HI . , , a I
" , asphalt paved, to width of 24 feet :and that the mainte-
U o I I I
I p ;. ,,
!VI ��IIH',I
� °nance,,.agr_eement wasccep e City Attorney,. ;
acceptable to th
,
.•
ll
ChaiPm an °Bond as� y yl nests
h .. recent re
,
"althoq
e. str J P iedythat'.,
I I „eets.whMrthBoehleeereolman-
courage private streets,. 'some=
the Ci'ty tend�'.to ds' l ,
times - public .i.mprovements are ,too^ .costly and a, public
street .:not `desired. lie added that sometimes the terrain
does :dictate pr:ivat,e- s.treets., and he felt the private
streets.,approved within the. last few months had been
,appropriate. Mr. Boehlje )also clarified' that residential,
' s o our or less lots were not
n minor ,
units, in subdivision
for design,
r to be ruble wed site
I III
a
it
f �
tl �I �� ° II udienc any
if p an ones t q
'ti IN Charrm rom
�`. an Bo
nA a$',
„
I „
of Laneh �e regardinl,
:.ked
���' h :� :. uestions.
u q iden s ok g
res 't � i
I I
�hlllh °1II °,i!I'' lii :.
I _ 1 m.
° streets land, of the difficu” y r ..
L. °p rib
111 ���un
7 „ „ .
.
th ed
IL
.allnthe
thatrisihlethe
neces �Mry ,Boeli}1Jetogp
y re l
, �
� I , � ,
�, �II�,I G� „,r
', reason t he only swishes to serve' 4 5 " o,r lots off of
onerivate street; "a!'son" why a solid maintenance
p ., . ,, and the re
agreement isl necessary. . Mrl Boehlje clarified that the
Fire: Chief had already reviewed the private street in
relation to , fire safety.
Comm. Head made ' a .mot on ,to recommend the approval .;of the
.
the 1.
p p , to City Council.
for the DeBe1 ro er
p y y
. „
Comma,,,Watersesecon the motion.
I �
�,�
I ,
o
, _I Idled :III ,' - .I• :„
,h'� h "I ° II " 4 l� .. :,,.
�I AYES 4 NOE 0 ABSEN� II3 ,
I I
I
�J + I a
i p I I� u � ,
9 1u
N '
II
I 9f
° I id IIU
II
,Ni1 a im u , „, I. , ICI' I� —
��
i it
ADJOtTItx�l`IENT.
� •, .y .. III
I I d
i
b!g g f then busines 'the ,meetyin adjourned a`,"
There bean bno ur g t
u
II �,
8:3 0 p u „
i
lilw
It
airman.
At',tes t:
'
-5
I
„ I
. „ 1 It