HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/03/19751 ` I, I , � '' l i n d .,,' II,,,, • .ail II :'
Flu , •,, � u i �� f�„i ' �I 'p„f ,�,'°''� '- n '' '"' �'I, "4;. .�; ;, .� 'i i , :, I
a p I L., , i
AIGEN'DA'',
., "I 6. �, I 'N'I,�'I+I J, i •II Y � � 1 Ifa, � I I II I I. � u
II,
Ji PET
_ALUMA CITY''.IPLANNIING ";COMMISS'ION "', ! F'I 'SEPTEMBER!„I;31, '''1975
?GULAR 'MEETING°
7 30 P M.
y' '„ tll it p I, ,II _
r III'' hl, ° ' r' al L' ;IU ',tv ,
�ITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,, ICITY HALL .'I i' ” d PET,& Nk, CALIFORNIA. .,
III ,' ° � , ;:' ,.
PLED'G91 ALLEGIANCE TO_ `„. THE.
' I i I I' • I ,I ;I i, ,,I
FLAG' '. .
I I I . .,. - II. �.. ,, I III L n . ; ! , �.. ,.,' • �'I, I, II I I �a, I . ,�, ,
ROLL CALL: Comm. Bond Head Hillgoss 'Horciza
°Waters 1 f";I"
STAFF:i'Den'.B
ns oehl'j e,, Planning Director
Fred, E;. ETar.r,, Asso.ciat'e Planner
a i 1 ,'� ' ♦ n I � � 'L;III ' .i ... '�� ,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CORRESPONDENCE�I'
,,I,�
I � ,I ;I , II ,
I. lot i;;r_w„I""'_ t„ .'„e.7A,
I CONSENT ,CALENDAR• -
•
" tion' e for modify of the
r1�^Considerer I ^
I q
Ppi'c'a'tion
of 'situ descent
ed by the
review approved
�Plnditionsommissio,n,on.,J,uq” 13 ',''19.7511„Tor the Petaluma
Inn R -atMcDowell
I
YIBlvL,,,! andarquest �itoallowdevellbpment.,ofthe
rnec
c t aces.
pro .e_'.....„ hn' seven'.,p,:",,.".
WLTY COUNCIL
1)'' Recommend'ato to the Cit Co cil with regard
n y
r
'REFERRALS-• 'I
Ipn I! I r 'I .,.unn
to the"'I re'q'ue's't of Young "America ''Hom'e''s' pto modify'
the,Zon.ing Ordinance toTrequire a minimum drive-
,
'
n, v I, i I,, „ I I^ 'It 4.
way' wi'd'th 'of 16 feet,',instead o=f 'the�'2�0-'foot
width, presently' .requ"ired::
2) Requesi by"',the. City Coirnc'1 for.'furth"er considera=
' 1 li 11"
"° ti'on,°I; o'f' thea "Bodega Avenue'/Paulua,;' Lane, rezoning'/
prez"oning for possible amendment too the rezoning
,. "
i
in as, reco -
p1r.ezon' g -'! , fihende.d .„by 'the,IlPlann•ing ''commis''°
Sion to the City; Council :on,July 15,'1975.
I, AL
IpI
I, :I„Ixl
MR: & MRS 'H LLOYD
apPea1 b' Mr &°Mrs. H. L 'o d o'. n
Consideration af' y . 1 y' f
an
-a A'. U",," II
1.IIII I, #,,
onell °f the conditions .�,of° ,approval as" stated in
,2'-75":'
s'trative Vt"ions
mi ariance No. 2-75 granted for their
N rop.erty' j, oc`ated ° a't 420 '°'Orinda rAvenue,
D D YOUNG.- REQUEST
xl D. o
'Continuation of H earing•to consider thel I�
I, I I
1 11 I I
FOR USE 'PERMIT U3-73
:;Pilublc
u a w •u
ns ;o'f Use
request for. mo.d'irfi:cati.on'of °the conditio'
&, SITE DESIGN
nPermit U3�-7'3,„andit,,isite, design review, conditions for y,
MODIFICATIONS :
” I I di I .I I
the Youn'gist'owne *brilehomae ' Park located at 950No.
d„ I...,
Mc°Dowell r B°lwd I', . IqI
tj
'Y
w; I,. „I"� ''I , •I
� „r' I le„x 141 GI+' ' ' I'�” �` YOVI�I ��Yuf ,I, I .I .0 � '"! u'a ' �
Petaluma Gity,Planning
Commission Agenda; September. 3,, 1975
,JOHNSON 7 SITE
Consideration of site design review fox the •appr,oved.^
DESIGN REVIEW':;
Planned Unit Development., for the "Lands of, Wok ciechowski
located at 831 Madison Street., "
LANDS ;OF CALIFORNIA
Conaidera,tion of the following .requests for,, the Lands
NEWSPAPERS, INC... -
of Califft-nia Newspapers, - Inc. , located` at '200 .Washing-
EIQ EV.ALUATION;;
iton Street
REZONING Z10-7,5' &
,SITE �PESIGN- .REVIEW.-
1) Public Hearin to consider the E�IQ submitted, .by
Murray McCormick :for the proposed Sierra'Nat onal
.Bank., " .......
2,) Public Hearing to consider the, appl-icat on of 1
California, Newspapers,, Inc. f:or'rezonng- of.':an'' '
0.-153 acre area of a larger parcel to the rear
of 200 Washington ;Street from R -M -G .to C -C Distr-ic.t
to provide, ad'diti'onal comiiveftial area 'for con'-
'struction, of' a bank: with drive -up facilities.
'3) Site design review plans '.submi.tted .by E. D.
McGillicuddy Company ;for' the;pro.posed,S�ierra
„
'National Bank.
ADJOURNMENT
i
'I ",°^.I • , n, nli '„,:y, � ,„ is {, ^ ,p ,o:,, l 7i I. i, :
„i( ',, ``' i; z^. K,r:.+”" r LL : i,., f 1'„ n ❑r il'•I� M " ., ih
M' I
N U T' E" S
it �,, n , i a,. I ^'
,,'
, ` ^n
SEPTEMBhR 3, 19754 LUMA C..tZ PLANNING-jCO? ISSION
REGULAR MEETING Gi
7 30 "P.M.
„i hCITY! 'COUNCIL" CHAMBERS, . CITY''µ:HA4LL
PEIIAtUMA, CALIFORNIA
a COICIm. B'" 4 " ° w
PRESENT:' on'c1'; Head,• Hilli,goss, 'Hor-,' a; Popp:, a,Waters:; Wright
olr. o. , '�
ABSENT:' None ,. �. ,.:I,4
p m
(STAFF; :I Dennis' ;Boehlje:, Planning' Director.
Fred, E. 'Tarr', Assbdiate Planner
niAPPROVAL OFI.MINUTES:. The minutes�of"'4 '
August',19t, 1,975., ,were; lapproyed as 'submitted.
i, {'a _ FY . i ,. . tH' . � .. i 11 '„ .r � ,i at'. `" � 1, 6 :,r. . �. �,.{„n ,I ..,., al 'h, i I �,� ! •'
Shell', .&'p Dredgihg1'n : Cyompah ;;,,, formerly Pioneer
,4 CORRESPONDENCE;: I° ' She lltewas read to, �
A let
:.
the '.Commission"" relating` to a letter from' the
staff ,,,con;cerning; noncoriforinance', wi1th" the conditions of+ the or'gi
nal Use Permit Mr Morris esen'tially expressed the need for
"` communication with lthe ,I", .and-"Jsstated his°` intentions to comply
withµ the Use Perm tr,condyti:ons over a period of: time. Mr, Boeh1'je
advised that a meeting with',Mr. "Morriss' wouldl' be scheduled in the
near' ,future;: Im
It
i
gard to,
ions
ST PAN MOTE -L deeftirutheoPetalumaeInn'.MatelhRestauranttlocatof,:the site
II »�Ih p II
j sign'„ f
ed. at 20Q
Sou
Ill
a... :.
MODIFICATIONS 'OF McDowell •-Boulevard was -,indicated , Ithis item ,.was .withdrawn from the
11
SITE DESIGN REVIEW• Consent Calendar. '
1,41
;. Comm 4 Bond asked what was, being changed, and Mr. Fred Tarr ex=
plained the- 7 point phasing' 'and tlieJ archite°ctural modifications
q r that had :beehlt proposed'. Il Comm'.. Wright stated'^'he had served"on the
A'rchi�tectural 'and 'Si"te' Design Revie11w, Committee and. `wds disappointed
` .. ,
,..- ,: p 3, had':Iibe`en" returned, for",,; mod �f cat ons. jilt
r at, the:
to ect
�, jl", It!i , ! , w.. ur,i; �y' , a „ 1111' , .d Il� 1
fit
s to
ytthey
had submi.tdte,d thiserdequestnfor,.modificatpionidaMt. aHeroldhMahoney
r�ctl,,. eco . III" . i
informed the•Commzssion that the reasons far the modifications
1„ n, , � ill , • C � , I- ° P " rF , .
were est' y nomi�c`, since it!"Id +t_'e-nant. could not, afford' th'e' u
° a' licant'was in+Ga reement'with'rthe!"stuccoComm. Head asked if the
additional -costs that would be incurred
Pp g venee'r'being.includeda'
,, II m,l; Ir a aIle, and howl much it ,would affect ,,his `cost. ,M e replied,
he had °"hoped tha°'stucco veneer swou11 not 'be r' ':' ry buthatahe
ed'; '
was wzlli.ng to;,compromise,., ,r 1Mr. °aDfick „4 tifeb 1,architect -for .'the,
pro3oct stated that, the stucco » I. ! '
ucco was a '$2;20,0 item in the project,
{
I but he , felt; that: it„ ulIshod be left44 in .;t6 harmonize .th''e ad
,
on
,w a he existing
dzt r . ,
,
• with .t ..,
motel.
N,ly, „ A, ,d:is ,„ t
cussiollo�aed' re ardirz lied ha'sin o'fl''thea"proje'ct., Mrh.
,, o,f g g p g
would `refer .»not to. follow the dphab6t1 cal
Y'indicated ,
g`r _ M
hew p "
Mahone
' g of! the "phasin but twou1'd,',prefer.'�to',do^"it as. conven"fence
listin
,i, warranted. Gomm Head asked that 'the restriction of phasing be,
It
N
Petaluma City Plannin
Commission, Minutes., S.eptembb.k 3, 1975
CITYCOUNCIL,
REFERRALS:
delbted; however,, Mr�. Boehlje objected to: the .removal of,�,, that. -
condition on! the basis that it was necess'ary to know whi, h .,ppr
tions of a--ilt first so'.that, each portion could'
proj;ect would. be built Portion
be acceptable if additions were riot completed: Comm. Head stated
he -was-,lobking atlthe'project from the viewpoint, of economics, •and
did not feel these restrictions Were necessary, Chairman Hilligoss
explai,ned that phasing would allow for adequate par -king ;as 'the
development proceeded. Mr. Mahoney advised that- it was very
.conceivable that it vou -0 be neces,sar-y'-f .for -,them to.. build.the',26=
unit 'motel. addition• before the banquet -.room. Therefore,-,. he- would
prefer flexibility, to.,proceed as they thought best and
parking,and,
,landscaping would be provided as nece's'saxy.
Comm". Waters, objected to the discussion, inasmtchas th6r'phasing .
and architectural design,jiad been all di�sdus,sb d- 'and a4teedto at;
the time, of. the Architectural & Site Design Review Committee-.
meeting:.. He: felt the: pro ' ject should, either be approved., with
s-as recommended, by. that, Committee, or the Committee
should .be abolished. Comm.. Watbrs,therefore' ,moved to approve the
site%d6sign.teView�.modi:f;lcations with ppr conditions of 4 .oval as
r.ecommended:by,:th I e Architectural S-ite Design Review C it -tee.
omm
Comm. Bond seconded, the mfotio.n.,
AYES 6, .NOES L 'ABSENT 0
1)
Recommendation to I °the City Councl-1 W-ith, regaxd to, the request
of'Young America Homes: to modify. the Zoning Ordinance to
,require a minimum driveway width for single-filyhornqs of'X16,
:4eet instead of the 20 -foot width presently . required,:,
Mr. so h1j b? advised that, no; written reporthad, been .prepared
.,and, stated that one, of -the main reasons :for:__a 20 -foot standard
driveway width was to adlov; people to out Of' their,
onto,.. a, driveway instead of`,grass or mud. He advised that a
check wi'th,,neighbdring cities had', ,indicated a variety of 16 to
.20. feet width requirements..
Comm. Head made -a, motion to -,grarit, the request. Chairman.
Rilligos's. .:stateld'.that she felt more discussion was:dn order,
whereupon, Mr., -,Boehl �he
_je� advised' that
prbper action to,tdke
was;, if the Commission desired an ordinance changes; the staff
shoiild be requested�to I—pL ,
onefor a. -public h
I repare .-ed.r-1-iig at the
next meeting, If the, -,Commission aid, inot_
wish the ordinance 'to
be changed, are*commdndatioh. tQ that effect, should.be sent to
the City Council,. MkI, Harold, Wojcie
chowlsiki oblected-because a
,Motion was on, the'table, However,* Mr.. Bdeblje replied that
the motion 'had' been inappropriate, -since -it would,take a'
.public -hearing tbmake;,a motion for an ordinance I C
-hahge
Chairman, Hilligoss -asked if.ihere was,, a. second 'to Mr. Head's,
motion No . response,, was-, given. And the motion •died for lack of
a second'-.
-2-
W
Peta alumCity PlEff n ng; Commission .Minutes.,. September- 3, . 197.5
I li'.I' ",,"i . . I I
'
u. III I ill IIIA '�,411 v''lll I I n, 1. •» I � �, III , V .'
ha•spokeI in opposition to changing.the 20 -foot
Mr.:l John Balsw
I II
jjp"' °I dr ueway ;width: requirement I He +advised, that, the idea had been
Ill.
t0.give people wide enough driveways.°so that they would wil
liriglyl park.` off +of ''rthe ,stre tls land'•rmake,l the street safer for
cycIlists. (also rys'tated..that if, the. City ,requires 20-foot
,,He
drzyeways�; in 'the future�aandampers could be required d
�P, L.
totllbe,'taken"„Ilof he.,.ls fr'eets i+f,yde, r4._, ,Mr. Balshaw advised
t JI
lo.
aI ' p - _ 111, • a +Ill” i'.IP�. .i .
an changed to a minimum of 5=
the ordinance had a'lread"
Y°
gbeen
;1110=foot snide aids to:'' allow access creational vehicles !
andt Y ; of re
'
to the rear ard,, and that lthe Cit, must to ahead in deter-
y
M
for .thee futurea: " ,Mrok
mii%ng what they :wanted; ° ; . .
Balshaw spoke..'
il" 1i, „I
in, particular, to ,the McGregor; ,Avenue..development of Young
I
41+' In .,t G . � u4 tha
America Homes, wher�e" he felt 2,0 -foot driveway widths 'were'
Il Jr.
nee'essary since''~this"'lldevelopinerit,wa- o'n' a principal route to
McDowell 'School:. -He felt.that if driveways in. this area were
" `
allowe , � •• � �I • cove.nant should be laced on I
owed to. be 16'""ilfeet inl, w °dth; a . »
p
those lots thatll,there should be„no street parking
all of .those ,
a »^
1 a m. land) 5 c;00 p':m. ',' °an wI thel school district
between 7
should be mad that; covenant. Balshaw
summarized' Il that I 1 11 dequaltef y was a question of
I soraeWrovsaon
Iron IJI
t the;st`"reefs' 'and al "" for reasonable
r.
parking area .for, the people in the -future.
u
r "I� 6 I. ,
Mr., Jaek�„,,Ol;".-Neel,,,.:Young (Amer' ca ,Eomes,J, advised the Commission
J
" he 'was not 'looking, for "a'' change ' for "the McGregor Avenue
A'
rlar?;IIIbut ;was 11asking for ''a , change to the,
p. oJ: ec;n aticu
a cos„
:Zoning a t-
Y
4i IO. ” I ''.snceaovertthe' l�ifestri.ctl
benefgt cons derati on of a FHA mortgage
°,this extkA� w d'thy, could .,cost ,,,an';,addi,ti:onal; $,415.00. Mr. O'Neel
,” , 1 � Pa �Cry
:' ideyard had been provided on
also 'stated' that a 10 -foot wide 's
I,I•.i ,i I I,
N"I
�
g w, Tor 'parking of trailers,
, the ° McGre ' r Avenue' homes to°- allo
» „�, I '''I.I
p t t e size of cars was
boa d that h
is aim campers'. He also advilse,
I ` „ I Y l • N•
.
I1 II sand m • In t
deere'asin 'and the, additlorial concrete ` l 'he front yard could
g
possibly • the..„assessed ,va1lue „of property.
y;raise
! d ” , a
I., "»' I'
smaller homes; and,
ewtthatgthe1public
Y•
saarsolanddesiaesor
smaller
!if
, "e Iw m
Comm.Mr" O NeeWthen,he would need a, decision on-
mm Head
Wh
asked
width,chang_ r regaled to his.presentlM' "
t cGregor
n„1. if
h »developmen t,; (before, he 1,„ ncurred',iltheextra cost. Mr.. Boe'hlje'
advised that'an ordinance change would riot affect this par,ti-
cular!"develomentl because t.Ih. ad'been' pd under the,
.II
requirements o as it now
O .Neeh stated" thatelilZ�wouldothenabeehis;,intent', toaappT for a
° t apply
variance,I,Ifor.,, thatdevelopment:,"I
r
¢A short 'discuss'ion! llowe&z it Comm.. "Head felt that a public
'
hearing should�be held to consider the chin Comm. Bond
,I I
nt public inpuge.
91re lied •'that Yie felt' suffi' M° t ha'd ;been.' Iaecom-
plshedlat,the,time thel,Zoning Ordinance was adopted, and, ,saw
VII , 4' ,µ
,m,,'
'
,I , , I. 1 1
no reason to lower the standards, butfelt they should be
enforced instead. Comm: Wri htl andlWaters
rs Comm. Popp at minimum
men't wl� h 'Comm. Bond; howeve"g, statedd'tttheir. minimum
. "'" ;'
s't'and'ar.ds, I'ishould,, not .be lbeyorid'I;, what'"''pe 1 A" , cou''l.d ''afford . to
•L ,. I•' I;
pay •
Petaluma City Pldnning-CoMmIssion'Minutes, September 3, 1975
Comm.: Hea.d.made,a motion -to ask the:Council to re'considerthe
Code.. :Mr,.. Boehite rekterat,-ed' that the:prbper action would be
to direct the staff- toprepare'a -revision. to the ordinance and
to -publish the• matter for a.publichearing. Comm. I Head,
changed his motion- to direct the st-aff, to preparg the revision
to the. ordinance,.
Mr. Jon Joslyn, Qdntas DeveIo t Cor'poration, addressed the
Req
IP
Qpnqissi6n,, stating that planning .,s,eems, to be more in.th'e. form
of Planned, Unit Developrdents,, which,.result in smaller lots and
the utilization of larger areas of' common or, _ptiblic open
space,. He stated, that he f elt-. that. too much concretewould
result on the small lots in PUO developments:., and therefore
felt that public hearing'should be held to'consider all the
factors. Mr.,Boehljeadvi- ::4. -,that Planned Unit.Developm ents
-
coul6_'b6 afforded some relaxation from this requirement and
other requirements of'the Zoning Ordinance.,
Comm. Waters stated that he felt this ordinance -change should
be -brought up i at thetime of the annual review of the'Zohing
Ordinance,and: Comm. Horciza expressed his agreement,,. Mr:
Bo.ehlj,e informed the,Cbmmission that the next.annual'review
would not be until Ve__br-qary ,1.9,7.6,. Since this was a City
Council Referral, he advised that -a re'commend'ation would have
to be made t6the ,City Council at this time. Comm.;Head.
for motion that 'the plans �be drawn up for consider-
ation 'for changing the size of the driye.ways° from a minimum 26
fdgt Width to a minimum of 16, feet in width. The -motion died
for lack of a second.
Comm. Bond ,moved to recommend to the City Council that the
pres'ent minimum driveway width be retained and request uniform
compliance' with this requirement', and also.- vieW,thematter
at the-,Ltime of -regular, -review of. the Zoning,• Ordinance. The
mbtion,wa-s seconded by Comm. Waters.,.
AYES 6 NOES' 1 ABSENT: 0
2) Aeq4est�,b
y the City Council - for further consideration of the
B�o(j6ga Ave ue/Pauld Lanerezoning/pr6zoning I-ot possible
amendment,, to therezo-ning/pre.zo.nIng as,recommended,by the
-Planning W
Comfr&ssaon to the City Council �on July 1-5, 1975v
Mr. 8oehlj,e advis66 -that the City Council was riot asking the
Plahhing Commission to change their decision,. but was asking
for a possible compromise. stated that , t-
at th6, staff recom-
mendation at tAs: tIlne �.,�7ould'be,_ to. remain with the existing
recommendation from
the Planning 'Commission for R-1-20;,QOO and
R-1-40,,000 rezoning/prezoning., Mk-,.jB6ehlie further advised
that a compromise solution- had been prepared by the staff, and
explained proposal as outlined lined 'in •th staff report. He
-,c ';_
-4-
ym
Petal"uma "'C`i.t Plarin':irig Commissio •" � '
'i n Minute's,. 'September,- 1," 1975'
stated "„that the „actiony,,.tos,ta
ke would'�be.to either reaffirm the
NI recommendation pk.eviously made, to.,the`City Council for zoning/
i .:. f f• °to .c
prezori"ng, or direct the staff, .66me•back at the next meet-
s t the gy er proposed compromise plan. He
h'earsn .; bm.
Ing, for.'' a. publ ' ;the
advi_ ed 'hat he propert own s -.Fiad' received this compromise
Comm'. Bofid' asked why the" circulation system had been so dras-
tically ,'re'duced ','from, the. ,first j,dirculation system the Com-
missimission I , had 'Ai'Ili dotha'ta d `questioned if it was adequate.
on een
oehl'je: r, wa's;r adequate, since the zoning
proposed here was for R=1=20,00`0.. and, R-1-40, 000 zoning rather
:than for the. prior .proposal's of :R. -i--10.,000 and R-1-20,000'
zoni' ''
ng;:whichr would require a, more' extensive street system.
t Mr:.^BoehljeIadvised'the.Commission that Mr. Tom Hargis,
„Assistant..City,,Engineer,, was ,present to give cost estimates
.:for d4roving Bodega Avenue, and the. new streets in the pro-
iect... Cbmm ”"Bond„ asked:why;•there was no tie into West Street,
and 'Mr,. •Boehlje replied -that it had. been. abandoned early in
the°:dis'cuss'ions °because , f .opposition ;from property owners in
area
was 'area and d' 4 to would . not be necessary : if larger lot zoning
.
in ar p Y
also advised that the R-1-10,000 pre-
Hebe'r ;serIy a cul-de-sac, while
private,;,s,treets:would be•required in the R-1-20,000 areas.
area with contours so the
g pand the the area. Mr. Boehl't
the Commzsszon could o�oua of t
'COMM.ater"'aske for m
t: look at e
replied that it -could be fu'rn'ished; but advised that the
"matter; ha'd'toI be' back .to;'vthe City' Council within 40 days, and
•,there,fore some definite action would have to be taken this
evening. .,
Chairman Hilligoss.asked for comments from the audience. Dr.
l Gi l'bert,; Parch,, brive , . stated ,-he. ,was ' interested in f inding out
d mean.
the sewer
to'the•owners and alsoIthe�fin'`ncial aspects of
of financial outlay
what, ro osed road �woofsystemr ,;n,;Mr. Tom Hargis; 'stated that cast estimates had been
P re g ilizing the West
re -He, advised�thee°Subdivision frontage of each
prepared
guide: cost.'in 1974 amounted to
$6',,,000 per,, lot frontage, and, with the- 20% inflation expected,
could °amount to $6"00,0 to $7;:000' for a lot with 65 feet of
frontage,today.' Mr.,.Hargis advised that this figure would .
include the storm drain,, ,curb., gutter and sidewalk, and the
r at would t'er o .sewer,and="w water system, , � .`.in y d wo' d run abort $100:. per
iunningz foot•.Har is informed those present
that this
estimae-wasbased on
a balance between some collector streets
%"uG , Wand 'some minor."residential streets': He. also stated there was
_hills ide'development jn Westri'dge;, which was somewhat com-
•parable''to-this'area•, and. that higher grades involved more
, 'cost' Mr?, :Hargis
" • _. r ,advised that, a, typical 20,000 sq.
ft. lo-
t
fronting upon a,street`would'cost$20,000 for frontage im
provements deve
1&ped on a lq.t-ky -2ot basis. Comm. Head
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, September'3, 1975
asked, if, the -streets, could, no-,E,.,be impro.Ved -wLthout. costing the •
people money.,. -Mr,. Bb6hl-ie advised, that the, whole reason
behind the proposed, rezoning.waa essentially, that,, since the
property is currently, :zoned.-. R- 1-6;5 0 0 •an&,would require an
extensive street system if developed I to that potential. Iie�
e.�plained-that development under current z
oning could .:mean, a
tripling of the density compared f.o.'Fi , hat:was b.eihg proposed.
Mr- Boehlje-further advised that such, -a circulation, system
would haveto Lindlude a, complete network through the area, and -
most o-f7the property owners had objected that, their land would,,
be cut up 'and the circulation systbiii, Would be too-cost1y.,
Therefore, ' the Planning Commission had sent a 'recommendation
'to the;City Council for R"1-20;00.0 arid -R-1-40,000 zoning
because it, would - not require - a, ckiciiiation system. Discussion,
followed on the cost of the compromise plan: Comm. Popp
statedthatit wou'l ' d. not cost the: property owners, any money-
unless'.they chose.to develop their properties.
Dr. Paddorquestioned-thestatus of the 6" sewer line down
Bodega Avenue;. since it wa.s'his understanding that the: City
was not allowing any new connections. He .also :stated it was
his understanding
erstanding if the sewer district was:. set up it would-be.'
costly, and whether -his property was developed or not, 'he_
would be required to -.pay into the district." -Mr. Hargis'
replied that he. was. not sure, the .C-ity Was hot-a1lowing new
connections to,th ' e•V sewer line; however, the question had
come up as -to the'-dapJacity of 'the 6,"' line. He further 'Advised,
that,re,search had been donei,and he had -found out. -that it was
a rather moot question since the 6" sewer line,was,,de�eR _
k�
enough .,to carry a lot of.;; flow, but. was - shallow and* would,
interfere with the future�,w
,idphing of � Bodega Avenue.' I He
further advised that when B,6d-eg�a Avenue was w'idened,,to four,
S. -
lanes, the sewer 'line would have to, -be abandoft6d-and an
deeper sewek, line would have be installed. Dr. Paddo.r que's-
tione'd what the icost of this sewer line -would-be. Mr.
Harciis replied that it would :be approximately $25 per foot, or
a total of $60,000 to run the 8" line the entire
area. Chair
man Hilligoss, askedwho would bear the cost. )!4r,� Hargis
replied that it i§, -done in one.,of' two ways, by' property owners
themselves as, development 'takes place i, or *by utilizing:. the
sewer master plan and - C.-ity- funds.
Mr. Hargis advised. 'that there,Vas a,,:problem with the 6" sewer
line, since .it was located on the north si(le o-k-13odega :and it
was dif ficul,,t, for the, properties on the s°outher'ly side, to
connect- to.it becaqse-there were storm drainage ditches .on
either, side. As a rosu-It,F with the sewer 'line being only 2
feeit deep. in places; there: were a 'lot. of properties, where, it
was impossible:to get across the street. Dr. Paddor stated he
had been advisdO: that, I urther development of the Bodega Avenue
areaa-Vould ±equir"e -improvement of Bodega Avenue ,• and- asked who
would -pay for -it. Mrs.,'Har,4i.s.replied this could be done •
utilizing: gas tak, funds or,at, the-.exp6ns.e of property owners
_
„d
Ia .„II,
Pletaluma'l City,,, Planning, Commission. Minutes; September, 31 -1975
,WI®
as the land was dev .eloped, whichever waythe City, Council
determi:nes.•,. "He•'added that, the cost without' sewer: rel'ocat'ion �,,
.I„i..Lu
would,,rum, about,,, p length of
I
$190Paddorureplged
I.
these..
thatohetfeltull
I
Bodega Avenueut
fi ure
.. r• g s
Dm
II. + I,;. •' ,, II
•
^11,1 .I '' I' he: the
'' nce he
should have•„b” ail'able ''sooner.,, si
een made. av
very exhorbitant and might deter people from their
A”
jcosts,were
o `in
fans'• of level
p.
'�m.I,J
what would happen to those people who
were alreadyligoss•asked
y "I i` .
' ewer” if •Bodega Avenue was
the shat
improved. Mr.,Hargis,if the City decides to fund
q lied.. t
"
r IIII'
g' location of the. sewer would go
alo'nglwithnit atBCatyaexhense":" q; D'r. l Pad'do"r asked, if., he „could
p
_ ,"
only one, who
, • be required- to put in a street even if - he wasth y
" rt Mr. Boehle
did, not^wish, to develop hi's;ip'rope y., .• j:,e replied,
!'that lhei would,;,noti be, required to, „put i:n' the street, but the
could' either•purchase t p' p y him for this
pitycod se l,toosell' .from
ur ose,, ° or if he' d'id� not .w' could" condenm the
property and ,.pay, the,. ,fair market -value on -that basis'.
IMr. Joe"Pa' f aro"questione^d'how',''development in,the„Paula Lane
area would tie into the sewer'•system. Mr. Hargis replied that
II a °' {nlll..
h�, .• {jl 1 p, , 1.41'
the 'sewer would have to "be,.extended out 'to Paulya�.,La'ne,;'• how-
ever he •;further. advised, that.., he. „did- not, ,know if, the•,"sewer:
line could be exten up Paula Lane or not. -:because of the
+I"+4,ded
II�
"' shallowness of. they existing;!6'" ,sewer, line.
"i oad s stem was to be.
wide r y
Mr. Pagl' coned" how w
caro quhed°
�
that �a 60, foothe
�” e re „ : ' de. easement would be
LMr. BO hl, wi
I• `
'
'required, ung •I street 4 of feet from curb, -to-
eq a resulti
I
^40
„ , I ^ I
"cu rb.. In response to, Mr.-Pagliaro s question'of why we were
IL SII • +'
�, { d!,I.I rng p'rezoning outside,, of „the City limits, Mr. Boehlje
• t enable.,some logical development in tha"t
advisedhat it was to e
°I
area:P° )He. 'fur,ther°i ad zsed that, the �Courity refers developments
City for comments. Mr. Boehlje
an-areaato the C
,.!
'
! '"�"• he
_ Marce.11us '� 'I a' proposal for a lot split
° claiif ,eanthat' Mr .
_
with"thee°'Courify, but had beeri•,,turned down, on the 'bas'is .that he
would have .to .meet our prezoning requirements if they go into
; 'effec`t° " Mr-." .Pagliaro'. asked° i"f ,the "City would allow Mr. Mar-
�I ce flus to bring ,,.the sewer down, to which, Mr. Boehlje replied
'I
j
that there would be'.no.reason.not"to, but it'would be up to
JI
,:him to accomplish ` 'It. •, !'
1;,
„ ommissio
•, the C' n,'' 'stating he had,
Nir.'",'Beri 'Dorerifeld addressed..
,I
` r " "'
lived on Bodega Avenue for 3.2 years ,and• had
speculation .He also• questioned why lie not bought for
p aril two other neighbors
'
w % 1 w
ived.,riotificat.ion;,o'f'"the. meeting MrI; m,Boehlje'
,.. had.'I,�no"t rece', . ...
a
„
not received notices
ed to the. eo le„ w and
• F „„ ,I!
°I ' ass'uredzlthem he w,as notrtryo, gad
'"' in to 'exclude an ones, Mr': Doren-
An
fell expressed` his, ld`e,s re, .to °,have R -1=,20;'000, „zoning on the,
l.
n of his propertyhaand R 1 -1'0,000 -zoning on -the lower
upper portio, �
portion; and questioned"how t location of the ci'rculat'ion
been � . etermned. ' M'r. Bohehl ere l that,,they were only
had d
,
p y nd]thaeplied
trying, to follow'topogra h' a e circulation system
"""'' "'M1' n' {!,,,• """__
„
augge'sted''"was not defin'i'te'. 'He"fuither'111,,advised that a'
Petaluma City Planr.ii,ncr Commis.si-on Minutes,, September 3, 1975
street could not, go straight up the hill b6cause-of. the,
'topography •and the, qxpbnse:'6f cot -,16g into the "hillside-.
Comm. e
'Wright asked Mr. Dorenf he planned -to, subdivide
I
,someday, to' whichmr,.' Dor'enfeld.-replied that he ,did, but he
h.id, no 'definite, pIdins 'in, mind as .yet."
•Comm. Head asked why the-zonin' could - not remain m i , n 1A chanqed and
�consideration be g-iVbh on a case by case: basis, .rather tlan
arbitrarilyl'zoning all the lots at this time.. Mr.. Boehlj�e
replied that parcelization of these,propertieshas been.,ev.i-
dent,, and the City did,not:know.where -to ask fbr,jDublic"
streets, what type of public impr,6v_ementsto require,: 'or, what
"kind of development to all'ow:j since It. was, a very large area.
of land to be developed without an extensive street syst6m,.
He further "advised thA-, it is dif f - icillt to deal.on a piecemeal
basis; be -cause you then end UP with many private streets that'
have no logical patternandincur large maintenance costs, and,
slipshod d6velopmefit results.,
Mr. Dorenfeld questioned the access to the top'of his, -lo ' t,-
since he 'wished to build a house there; and,161t, that the. City,
was - landlocking, him. Mr. BoehIj e, advised* that he' -'would -have,
to, extend a! private drive 'to one - of the streets above. and
obtain access' easements ,from the ,private �,property owners,,j,
which would-be his responsibility. Mr. Dorerif . eld, 'stated ,he
,felt that this was the ke_sp6ffsIbil'-i-t'y'Qf,'. the City. Mr.,
Bodhl-je replied that M-would,be glad' to discuss his problems,
In the office whenever he wished.
Dr. Gilbert addres'ed theCommission and stated that i-f'pebple
who wished to develop realized the -cost, they might, very
possibly change theirm" ds .
Mt. •Ace Martelius,., owner Iof a.
pOrtAbn of --the property to 'be prezohed,,questioned the
place-
ment 6f'the road through hi*s property,,'"and stated helWotld
prefer 10',000 :sq. ft. single-family smallek,patcels., He,
stated, his'propettY was 1,,560-'fbet dee'pand unless he could
divide it into smaller Parcels, development would -not be
feas,ible,. Mr,. Marcellus also did not feel that. ldrge, lot
zoning should have the same_public_ imp.r-ovementrequirements
and suggested narrower,s,treets. Mir. Boehljja replied that it
'was PpslsibR! ta..'xia-kax the street, standards.if they are not
going to serve many, residents and there,is:not.tbo much
through traffic. He also �aAVi'
.,sed' that the stkeet-lo6ation was
flexible, and, that the upper area, of Mr.-. Marcellus' property
.could be,served by a cul=d67sac. Mr. Hargis advised that in
hillside development the,Subd I ivision Ordinance does make
provisions for relaxation of. 'sidewalks.on bo.th'sides and
.elimination of on=stieet'parki,ng. He'also,stated that the
width of the street 'could be ded'kedsed' if it was a loop
.street.. The: estimated mated decrease would � . 'amount to approximately -
$10 to $20 d foot.
., ,, ,i I ''r1 '.I .I .'i i
rtY.:. .,- u•ajf„' .nri .rc: : :
"I' iwlll ,Ijl,.•du„I, "I ^ U` LI;" •:, :Ilk
P Plannin (Commission Minutes
III • etaluma City, gl - - ' - - -. ,,.,September,,. 3 ,,, 19'75,
„I
Comm, Head made a motion to recommend the ,circulation system
�
I: ,I I�
and 'compromise" zoning to th&l,ti.ty "Council. Mr. Boehlje
advised' ""th'at",t'he ,Commis's'ion,,,could, not r request 'the- circulation
system to be adopted,�.but could.recommend'•the rezoning%prezoning
:full" 1' th,a 'minimum. circulation ,proviso. !' He. further advised •that
the..proper uest” t staff to publish the
roper mo`tion.lwould,be to. reques
next
riing fora public hearing''('°' ineetin and then
rezo
I,
j
�,a p. ' q.., ecommerid the compromise
based on'°that, ubl^e hear,'in' could r-
zoizing to the Council. Comm. 'Head thereupon amended his
"
„City
motion to' r-equest'-the 'staff, to 'publish the” matter for a public
r „
hearing., la.t„ the nekt•rmeet ng (,;(The rinotiori';, was seconded, by Comm.
Horciza: Discussion followed on. why a public hearing was
n° ,
required"" ?'land., Mr Boehlj•e'' apprised'. the Commission of State law
F
re;qu- ire ments . „
6 du
AYES, "4' NOES 3 ABSENT 0' ,
A, .,.. t.a9;c'301;p.m;^,"and'�th'e meeting resumed at 9:40
A.recess was called a
m- ,.
P:. m . .
I • �
'MR. & MRS. H. LLOYD'
_ Ir •:Ir'''e ::`��.
dV ' d that` the•:"'consiider'a'tiori of"an a eal b Mr. &
Mr. Boehj" a v se
7,- PP Y
'.V. #2'-75 : ' .'
'Mrs. H,':, Lloyd 'of, one, of ,'"the°' conditions' • of",appproval as stated -in
Administrative, Variance No.,2 75'granted'for their property 'lo-
bated , at 420brind'a Avenue, .would be removed' from 'the Agenda
I •.. r•
someone, He
,,unless, s ee, a
r P P
unl e inutthe ncr wrs resent to s ea to it"ing..that
l
that the i:cantes 4i
called say g .
advised 1' p e sentative had ca
",
ry
'they 41d,llillsh to p''drsue "I the matter, although. he had been '
„
unable• ";to I,I contact the, property owners.. Chaff Hilligoss asked
y torman'
f_ -an one in. the audience wished fo"speak the matter, and no
rep, y','was',mad'e„
:
n .
� •;µ • I i�'
Hi
't r` --ant the' re '.ues't 'Chairmanlli oss
Head m' de" 'a motion ` o
Comm:• a
a.. since] the apph'cation had
advised th 'no ction was n'ecess ry,.
`"a"I:"
r
be .w',t wn.• u
en i hdral .,.
IIII " 6 ,, . , • ,. ,
D:: - RE VEST
D. YOUNG Q
e "G p-,'u,Pq,l1 �Gb I! ,� . .
r 3
"reviewed 'the • staf' til to the r I ° `
Mr. "Boelil.e' ' I f, ..I`.p _�.. g eque"st for
II F E °iP'ERM'IT U'3-'7.3
"' °•modification's,'°of'" conditions of Use` Permit U3=73 .and' site,,design,
DES,
UIGN
he Yourigstowne'Mobilehome Park located
rev. ted at
review,conditions
`i ondi ions for t
lil y''&OSITE ,:Nm
,I I �t.„� " ,I , ,I",11' '' fi
•'`Boul'evard. that ''for'"
MODIFICATIONS .
950 North McDowell He advis'e`d the reason-
continuation,'°of th6,Plubli'c„ Hearing was to .allow •„the.,P'..G :&E,.
architect'ano ' to,review the ro osal. then read. the
pportunity proposal. He
comments'„"furri"ish'ed'„'b PI,:G..&E.I'.
•.,
n o on-
Comm.'. 'Popp stated h,e fe°lt th'a't ns
sidered lafte'r„`ally^'the •''len thy' � en given to
'• g considera'tionithats'had been iVe
„
this, pro�'eet in the past -I. Comm. ,Head asked,, if •th re quest for
r „• Mr Ae
deviation was' because ;of' 'monetary ”"savings'. rt' LaFranchi ,
representing,;•Mr. David D. Young ,ista.ted',the reasons were many --
some ere e some aesthetic an
W conomic _d some'were the result of a
I'
'IP
Petaluma, City Planning Commission Minutes,. September -3,, -1975 V-,,
disagreement with staff as to what had actually been, required. in
-the original Use Permit;. He asked wha:t%otder of events should be
considered on: the, ,requested, modification :, 'Mr : 'hoehlj.'Ei repl-ied
that the only item on •the Use,.,Permi t, -itself .;was the fence and, berm
requirements., Mr.'•,LaFranchi advised that-,,; Although Mr., Young had
proposed a 5-fbot her'mvith• denser 'landscaping to replacethe
required5-foot -berm,and 6=foot masonry fence, because of a
suggestion madeat the-;Architectural'
-;Architectural'and.-S�ite Design Review Com- �
mitteet-
meeting that, he developer.-prepare'a specific inew. pj_�Oposal
T .
and coordinate it With, P,. G.:&EI. , Mr. - Young had, retained an,, acoust'!
cal poAsultant to determine if—the fence was actually needed: As
a result of this,j Mr. -Youqg-now -proposed -a ;3 -.foot, solid wood fence
to,be placed p4,topof the 5�foot berminptead of the 6' -foot
masonry wall orgi I nally required. Mt'.' LaFrdh6hi added there .had
not been any opportunity to coordinate this new idea with P.'G.&E.
Mr•. Dobbs, the acoustical_con'sulta�nt,,, advised the Commission that
he was speaking only to the technical aspect of sound and .its -
requirements, and. to whether or nota 6 -foot mas * ohry wall was
required or in excess of what was needed, He,advised that a
masonry fence is not required for sound.. absorption,,. and that a
solid wood fence 3,feet high would be sufficient for the situation
gave comparative record of
foundh6te.Mr. Dobbs ga an of a'comparativ
noise he had accorppliOhedwith sound lev"el teco.rdift n t -h
e, Site
during ;P,;'G.,,&E activity. He stated, that 'the-s�,- stance of what he
had to say was: that the noise env Iror-Anent at this location is at
such. a. level because. -of fre'eway'traffic,, that the- -noisefrom the
PiG-.&E'. y4tdi although audible;, is not at., a lev"Jel much greater
than the-, nq-ise from the freeway: � � He that it is
impossible -to lower the :n6 ' i�se on the-,,mbbilehomd paxI�Vj�,eh there is
already a comparable- amount of noise. existing on. that site from
the fxeeway. Mr. Dobbs,,advised that a.masonry wall. was not more:
effective as a - sourid,barrier than a solid wood fence, with no..'
openings would be. He stated that he, felt the -total.noise situ
ation should be dealt with. He, was quertiori6d if the tkees•would
not cut down the sound from the freeway, and advised,that.the
benefit from trees- and: other, landscaping, is mostly psydhOlogicall
since 'although the Would 6bscure'the ,sit6,, the noise, would. not
they
decrease appreciably.
Mr., 'LaFranchi stated that Mr.,_-, Young was not, asking that the fence
be deleted, but Vished to* demonstrate,. to. the sa-f-I sfactl on of the
City that an alternate 1andscapin I g plan, . -tlak-ing� into consideration,
the existinglconditions., would be more satisfactory for the aes-
'
thetics of the mobile home park and address --the,'Ib�gimate concern
',
that P'.,G.&E.-had regarding possible complaints fkom neighbors. He
asked that, the Commission, adopt the alternate, landscaping, plan and
give Mr. Young:,,a,ch.ance to prove that'it' would be,.sufficientj and
also prove that: the noise. would nd,t':be a •concern 'at all. since
the,mobildhome park was ready'for occupancy,, _,Mr.. LaFranchi asked
that bonding be- required to gi4rante6. performance in excess of the
amount which would e required, to construct the or., �as an
a-lternate, amend the plans to include:.a solid 3 -foot wood fence
,0
pefaluma.'.C'it' P1'' ' ' in
y'11 g
�s 'on' Minutes Se temper 3,, 1975•
Comm 'c p
I"
"' th°''bond 'ng ";so that°Ioc'cupancy,,. can,, take place , Mr. Boehlje,
wi
"Jill4
thra.t the .City °is opposed. tol'bondi:ng the construction and
„i.ndicated
allowing occupancy: because .screenririshould°be accomplished before
1 "'�, " ';'
•:,,,the, residents,,,,are., allowed •.occupancy,.- -
Mr. Jolz'n, ;Stuber, "'Eng'ine.er for lythe p'ro °ect" , advised that -the re-
in
oder to accommodate a0iasel r
„u c wreroo'lsd
'more intense than the
screenndthe pposed landscapi.wa
ori;' final 1'ans•:'',I Nir. B' oehl.je;stat:e'd "that the sound index indicated
thatlplanting,_ 'was, not,• ,'an • adequatenoise barrier, and questioned
o`the lanting pwould .have a diffe"r'ent effect along the P.G.&.E
boundary,"line. Mr: Dobbs stated that he,would disavow himself
•
from any, statement relating�to acousti_ca' benefits from planting.
He stated that p„lariting had a.esthetiuc ''benefit only and the one or
N
nedr"I'from dense .trees „•wa's'�Im�n
.inimal, although the sound
dbwouldabe
:two
a s •' •
fil.tered,•and sc-t erect C ewha't. John Stuber
'.
agreed that, there,, was no sound ,rel'ated for the landscaping itself,
•
he� landscaping• provided avisual. fen, and. the question of
screto
u r
ht!
.but',.t
l
concern was whether it was necessary screen from sound at all...
44 1
r,.,LaFranchi;stated that.P.G.,&E'...Iwas concerned that noise might
µ 'be :a problem,' 'but' it was not "known: •for sure .if a problem would
exist. HeMiequestedf!that the park be ;allowed. to operate, since
the City-,_ would in'turn have •a bondprotect themselves. Mr.
"
.to
Boehlje "again'spok'e in o' i"tion .:to the bond and related to the
,
ment invol n calling the,laond andtheCity performing
t�.me e e i
I I, ,,
®
el: if .it became necessary.Mr. Head stated
themselves
p . thems
•
he •;eltmthi s "w,as n'o't fa>r, since" acco"riling to expert testimony,
„
evel would,•be asked t
the d . p o' put* in something that. was actually
,.• ..oer ul' a
not ~needed.
r,
Mr. 'Bartlett 'addressed the Commiss,•'
ion, reviewed the operations of
the service beriter'' headquarters,' and stated his. main concern 'was
.
'.
tha_ ,, ,I fact enerate n
W t''' it,,'doe,s° p inll" ,. g 1 oi'se. He introduced Mr. Darrell
Newman, -the P.G &E.•la.ndscape,architect from San -Francisco. Mr.
Newmans' s'tested.' that' the .plan•.presented this evening was 'different .
,
he -had , -
froml,the.one reviewed; however; he. had��,no basic.,, disagreement
,. , ..:.
with what,,` .° I
t Mr Dobbs said He stated he was_,still concerned about
th1.e',hei ht,,of” the 3. -foo t;, ;fence, since ,,the P.G..&E. property
elevated
elevated and.sr, p '-;,off back ermobilehome '
' r r 1 property,, and .that
to .ess-
L.
'
property als, o back towardshe7.rai'
p- p y 's'l'ope °nage Mr. Newman.' advised '
I,
;that this, resulted in the (berm actualT'y, being in a trough',, $o that
a.true dimension or height of 8 feet total did not exist, and
methn,' more !must therefore be, so, g usconsidered because of the de-
I.
pressed,situatio% of the berm.. He-agreed that plantingdid very
i.
rre
little towards° be'ingl a' sound ,ba ,barrier, unless it was .of consider-
able.dept_h an, intensity,, 'sand statba'.that the freeway', noise should
alsobe screenedutl Comm.
ned. Bon
speaking on
behalf of P.G -, _., he would requestk hat t e' fo
t the 6 -foot ma
- onry wall
still 'be retained,. Mrl< "Newman replied„ that it would not neces-
1
ymasonry-wall,rsince he agreed with Mr. Dobbs
" °
,Y ��
I, ®
that: wood •fence ,would probably- do us'i. as' good or perhaps
: •� u;
t he did feel th'e need , f
better,,Y 'bu • or' • a 6 -,foot wood fence because
,
r ,, r to „J ' filo ' • ii " ,I, aY,
-'11- .
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, September 3',, 197,5" 1�`"'"
of 'the depression of the berm. Mr -:Dobbs informed him that the.
berm presently is riot at •5 `feet above' the ,P.G.'&E. pad level,, but •
Mr. ,Stu'be"r had just" assured, _him that the 57-footberm would' 'be from
pad level. Comm. Bond asked'Mr. Newman if,•the berm were 5 feet
from pad level., would' he agree to the 3' -foot wood''fence .as.being
sufficient.. 'Mr.. Newman said it was a possibility,, but he would
have to research -it, further. Mr., Bartlett "was 'asked if felt. he
still 'wanted the 5 -foot berm and the 6=foot";masonry wall as
originally proposed. Mr.."Bartlett .repled that from the. infor-
mation received tonight he thought- it would 'be. necessary for
proper. screening: Mr... Don Marquardt also of`P.,G.&E., stated that,
the, time element must be considered, since'the 'fence should be
constructed in the,first,;phase. 'Mr. LaF•r;arichiIstated that Mr.
Young, would be.w lling that the spaces next to the bermnot be
occupied -ahead of'completion of the fence.
A letter wase read from, Mr. Joe. Lorenz, which. stated that he; had
lived on 'Corona""Road for'many years and' had never been bothered by
the .noise or, light from. the P.G,.&E. facilt'ies:. Mr-. .Harold,
Wojciechowski asked what.the maximum amount of-decibelsin.,com-
parison to other parts of. the City was`. Mr.. ,D'obb's replied
that
the highest decibel rating'was the P.G.&E. whistle at 74 &a and a.
train,whis.tle at 72'dba: He added' that other.equipment and.normal
activity at the P.G.&E. yard rated 65 dba,. and"that,"trucks on the
freeway recorded.at 68 dba,maximum.
The Public Heari1ng 'wa's closed.. Comm. Bond. ,stated he would' prefer-'
'the 5 -.foot berm and 3 -foot wood fence••and landscaping rather, than
A 6 -foot masonry wall for aesthetic reasons if,he were living in.
the park. Mr. Popp stated ;the concr-ete'wa11 could;be screened by
adequate planting..
Comm. Head stated. 'he felt .the • ,changes and. short cuts' were. neces-
sary to ;save 'money and therefore made a ;motion to accept the
request. Mr-. Boehlje" advised that any rriot'ion'different from the
original'xequest should include exactly'how'Aigh the berm and
fence shall be,, and whether or not bonding will bean acceptable
'alternative to providing th_e fence before occupancy:: Comm. Wright
zst"ated he was in ,agreement 'with, the, wood. fence , from' an aesthetic"
viewpoint. Comm. Head .said that he had a- motion on -the Boa'"rd and
was-looking,for'a second. Chairman Hilli"goss advised him that he
would have to qualify. his motion', whereupon Comm. 'Head 'moved that
the Commission, adoptall three proposals that the applicant had.'
submitted for review.. Mr.. Boehlje advised, that the .only 'item .
under, consideration a•t"this time" 'was'•the condi,tion._o.f the -Use
Permit concerning the fencing: and berm adjacent to, the P.G'..&E.'
yard. He, asked Comm.- .Head to please specify how'high. he wished
the fence: and iif'he wished additional bonding:: Comm. Head'asked
'Comm. Wright to'make.the motion for him and withdrew his'mo.tion.
Comm. Wright moved that, that portion of the original Use Permit
requiring a 6-foot:masonry wall"be modified 'to a '3 -:foot solid .wood'
fence on top of the '5 -foot berm to be constructed before occupancy,
- 12-
I „.I...I'ly v r r'LI„'Iilki. + luarllll, I” ,Ih'gl '„61, l .�� .nl II•,; ,. ;,, r M, Iq 'I I III ',
^
I
h I �
Petaluma C .,ty f,1'ann: ng' .Commissi.on Minutes;, September 3,, '1975 ,
t r...,
q ' m Ilr I ,:I, ” I I I va' ,' d' .,, i, '' h rl • � , ',r I � , , r,
foth "solid woso 'that) a, 60 day bond be pq el a 6
I:I
with the proyod
fence;' filth' 3 foot saldnwoodefencererovedl��not to
be sufficient.., _Discussion followed,J'Y.as to whether thea landscaping
'Adns
as shown' ori the, revised ' should, be included `in "the motion.)
.Wright "then;`:xamended, h_isl motion to .include the r lan`dsc`aping as,
'
,'
indicat ed on, the Murra McCormick„Alter n&ite'-pli I plan. : The .
"
r'
cy a , .r dl l' -
1.e
mo.tion, was •seconded by Comm, Head'.- Cha ' g ss' asked the
IIII 'I
rluapp'1'icantl if 'I these terms' were .a''cceptable', Mr.`;Boehljs' restated
the motion for: the applicant and clarified that occupancy would
'not bel granted ,until ''landscaping, , la 3 -,foot _fence, and:.54foot' berm
h• 'I II
�wer,e „constructed, .and that the bond would ,be a 60 -day .construction. •
I' t w
I'
q. p,, n 1 M {.,
bonput mtheBond' t woul wise
applycant if is would, bwit
yl
foques iaoned.•the
to.' ce immediat'el' . After) conference h
,,•
r �. Young,. M„5r1•... LaFranchf asked .'he the option to
if, 'could'''have,
put;in.'the3foot:wood,°i ncu"or 'the 6-footwoodfence. Comm.
I,I
Wr ght'!;mod fied'h s motion ;to include-' this option,' with,, both
options.,to include the additional landscaping,,and it was seconded
II '^�' " I. xl •I � ,r
Comm.
I I.. Y
A future. o664pant7of the mobilehome park addressed the Commission
''
and' stated that he';,, did; not want). Sto wait' two' months for occupancy
since histimein:.thePetalumalEstates•Mobilehome Park was up the
�
`
fust of i'Ocriber'; and he realized°"'that 'it wou].�1 take tiine' `'for
t
.'IIII It 'i,
"scr,een'in 'and •skrrting''I;ofi'I:.hs' trai'l'er':
g ,
;AYES' 4:'' ry NOESV` 2 ABSTAINED1,' ` ABSENT 0
Comm 1Horciza chose to abstain since he is an -employee -of P.G.&E.
I
Mrl. Bo( -il,je r ex plained 'the; site design" review, modifications re-
•0
r"rr;. .. x.41 r,l
,.
quested,°and readthe staff recommendations .as .listed in the staff,
-
.:
rl n L. e it
., xb. nil �, .
II'repbrl,t. It w IsF" also''"clari'f'ied '.rthat ,the''temppj�ary access on Corona
Road was,, to be used only Ito, park •recreational .vehicles and not to
"x.:NN
'NNI ini • get° into'th'e A',mobil.ehome park, and'"that a'0 permanen;t condition was
this access could ,not be utilized after, Phase Ii .was com-
plel,ted , Mr ILaFranchi stated that the applicant was requesting
„I m �Illrygl�,
tYatl the foot'path to.'be :instal'le'd from the recreational vehicle
it
u,'''I
arear I;to themobilehome 'rspark" 'be ,deleted, r. since, it was not felt to
Ir,
b&. necessary,. He also. advised the; recreational vehicle.
u
I” '„ o,,'rli 'w Y a
,that
G
`L°u• storage ,area.`woul'dll; only''coinej to 'th`e,Nedge�.of the -P.G.:&:rE': prope•r..ty
;
:. Mrg 9t ber further clarrifwha this l wast due to the 1 landscape
be,rn►I.alon• Itlie P.,G.&E.' boundyllr ich, would•'.be accomplished in
I ,I
°Pha'sel Zi::! ',#e`;reaffi'red 'that, .the,""access"IontolC'orona'h Road' would'
Bever be; a througH : way under. cirq stances: Mr. LaFranchi
,• Iln . II, ' ' °. 'I" , L' !I ,.
, „ ,any
I. a o ,I r , , .,, . I r n,
allied that the I applicant. again be 'a'llowed a 5. -day bond" for the •
,I
ctiftipletiroft of, these ItemsI'He, asked for„clarification of why the
teffP,Otary aecess was subject to R.,G &2. -:s approval, since P.G'.&.E.
has” access over^ the app licant p s roperty to 'ID 'their yard.
Mr., Brieh � owne
at rship� I of this' porrtion' •of the property
Bras undeterminedeatt time of ,writing the repbrt and that this
•'it6i," shotilcfi• be stricken from'y the .report
®
N
II
Petaluma •City'Plannng Commission Minutes; September 3;-1975
Mr: La.tranchi spoke against•:removing:;the.sign in ,Phase _I and asked
that.it not'be removed until the amorti'zation•.period of January
17; 1976- when all such signs .'would 'be 'abated. Mr L'aFrari'chi also -
stated.that the staff's Interpretation of` the. per"imeter,planting
•required_ -originally was .incorrect. .-Both Chairman Hilligoss .and
Comm: Popp stated it was: their' understanding Ghat the planting and
:berm, were.to be 'accomplished .during -P,has.e_ .I:.,• Mr. Stuber; stated:
that the perimeter, pl`ant'ing 'was required. in Phase I and :that one
of the -' conditibris, of the Use ..Permit .related, to =•tl e berm' along the
;highway :and one :related to..the subsequent site,,.design,review
condition; s. He added that those 'requirements :stated,'"if the
subject •park'i s; to be developed in phases, a'll perimeter planting'
shall be compl'eted,.in Phase I". He stated that ExYbi,t. "A" of the
Use Permit had _a.note:relatiag to the,requirement for an automatic
irr=igation system to .be instal led'with- the. landscaping•,;, and"
perimeter trees.'to be ,installed under contr-ac:t under •Phase I to, be.
put under a maintenance contract until Phase II'•is,completed. Mr.
Stuber contended that this condition- did„not include ,the berm, and
clarified that the berm would-be 20 feet from the property line.
Mt. :Dobbs advised that the berm alongthe Ireeway' would -provide
only- a :minimum benefit as a, sound barrier -;for. the ;first phase.
Mn Stewart advised that the drainage area,_sewer•line, prepara-
tion.of the area to receive the• berm.; and -the storm drainage that,
goes 'in -under, the berm, must.be. done 'before the berm is to 'be .put.
in, and could. therefore not be pint •in before Phase II is” accom
plished or it would be destroyed.
Comm.°Bond asked. for the :6taf'f"s recommendation of the four mod'
-•-.fications.. Mr..,-Boehlj'e stated staff recommended approval of the
parking and temporary' -access to' 'the R.,V:. Area, 'but recommended
against the modified version of the perimeter planting from: the:
standpoint 'f -hat.'- it would -reduce sound, to; some degree for,, the, first
phase and would., :oreclude any possibility, of lt' not being constructed,
tit., the second phase was not developed.. Mr,,. Boehl,je also stated he
wouldrecommend that the,signs be -removed as ,a condition of
occupancy,. Mr: Young 'stated that the project, was so funded that
he had to build both ,phases. and .he 'would. do ' so;; ,'with `Phase II to
be constructed,, in 19.76...
Comm. Popp,made the motion to grant the applicant ;the changes
xequest,ed 'from: the original site .design.. Thb-.motion was seconded
by Comm. Head..
AYES 5 NOES 2 .ABSENT. 0
Comm. Bond•and Comm: Hilligoss qualified.their'"no" vote stating
they were: in opposition to. the perimeter treatment.
Chairman-Hilligoss advised the applicant'he would have the,oppor-
tunity 'to appeal the conditions of the 'Use :Permit within ,10 days
to the • •City Council.,
-l'4-
Peta'lumd:.Cil y'tP,'lanning^°;@ommiss on°Minutes;' Sep,teniber'' 3'y^ 1975
,,
A1I' determination. "was, made. 'late thisf point. to, extend) the ,regular hour
of the. Planning Commission meeting'
,II
KEN JOHNSON - SITE
.. ,•
I,
�`:Mk. Boehlje explained..the project 'for the :.approved Lands of
IDES IGN' 'REVIEW -i
,
;W6j,ciechowsk "Planned Uriit 4,R D'eve.lopment located -,at '831 Madison:
Street, and read the„conditions;as'recommended• by the Architectural
and Site Des ” 1
ign. Review 'Committee". '
oon to accept the r"ecomm endations of the
^'
a �ch'athe eight .
Aitecturaland"1 Site'Desi n. Reiew:Comittee""with
I;,
,.^''uconditi'ons of^;approval,;;as"'^stated.;.il,� ,Comm•.. Horc;za seconded, the
motion. ,It was noted -that Mr. Johnson•:did agree at the time of
"' • " '' I' P'" :,.
IIG' I'f.' 1.�
1•I:I•. °thea' Arch'i'tec.turayl"and"' Site l Design "°'Review (Committee with - the
f th
conditions of,,approval. CommHeadliasked, (these were require -
I�
Mr B'ehlje replied
merits b la w, to which o they were re -
y
"t"
q , - determined after P.larni4ng s,taf,f, "review.., other agency
Rion of aesthetic aspects and
review 'and also after consideration p
,
,.'.I :.
E �u .I . ,^ „ _ ...
re ureme_nts.
q
i, HIL' 1 r �
:ordinance
,.', . ••'11r, {I v 'It' .. - ., Iv I. C o r '
,, ,.
I
AYES 17. NOES 0. ABSENT„ 0
I�
LANDS OF CALIFORNIA
r,
Mr. Boehlje advised the Comm'i'ssion that, the,application by the
NEWSPAPERS INC° ^- ,
Lands of "Cal'i'fornia News'Paers Inc. to" accommodate the Sierra
P
F O, EVALUATION,
National' king' tr,eet, would requir
�ONING Z10-75 &
evaluatio11 n, rezoning of: small portion of the�site,eandlsite
all
.'0 SITE'IDESI'GN REVIEW:
design .review., The staff report wa`s1 briefly reviewed. „It was
g
I
sI d, been received on the Env ron-
edl that no adverse, comments -
creVommended
y
mental Impact I.Questionnair' and staff aNegative
e'
+" •�P! clardt'i0h,y"J: e found. �a '
the"'Pub'l'ic Hearing was°I,opened`with'regard"to the E.I.Q. Mr. Gene
McG'illcuddy builder ".'for,' .the) proj,ec.t, informed the Commission he
concurredwith all conditions and that. the,representative from the
bk and the architectwere`°pkese'nt to answer any questions. Fie<
an
,F
advi's'ed fha't with regardlto Con ed',.that the
di'tion #6 he had ask
location o'f the utilities be flexible, and a meeting.with'the
..1,
ison to
Asstant City Engi'_neerlhad'determnea that he had no object.-
g" �the1.utilities continu°eII d om'to Washington n ecess'ar
gton if the-.ny
additional easement was given Bh]e clarified that the
'b!e'ing
ct" eywa,pgo.
+,allsed t " be abandoned fromtie,'point of this proj.e
on with,„thel,,condition of relocation of the utility line', and
advised that 'ori'ginal'ly the utilityl,.lnes were to run out to
I' III'
Liberty Li „and' down „ a Washington'' and, a.' service easement from
Street �to
Hill ;Opera_Alley would be granted out to Liberty Street.„ Mr..
'I q”
tl,
McGilli;uddy advised `hat the easement had. been grantedl n' 1964.
I
(The,: °P'ub`lic; Hearing was closed.'
.
,,.
Co mm waters '°mdde"a'motion to 'direct the Planning Director to
Declaratio11 n for the project: Theretare and Ipo t .,
,, ,..a Negative
motion was seconded b Comm.oaiza
AYES ..7 NOES 0 ABSENT 10
-15-
'Petaluma City Planning.Commission,Minutes; September 3, 1575
The Public Hearing. with regard, to:' the:- rezoning:was ppene4.
Chairman Hilllgoss- asked what: -was Intended, for, Parcel Y2.,i,,. to which,
Mr.B6'hlj,e re -plied that Parcel #2 was not involved in 'the 'pro-
-
ject. The Public Hearing Was closed. Comm. Popp made a.moti6n to
recommend, to the. City Council 'the :rezoning of that small,, portion
of? -land from R -M -.G. -'to C -.d to 'accommodate the bank kadiri`,ti6s.. ,The
motion was seconded by, CbmM. j4right.;
AYES 7 NOES 0 ABSENT 0
The Architectural &'Site Design; Review Committee's recommended
condi , tions of approval 'for. the, Sierra National, Bdnd, :facilities
were
facilitieswere read. Comm_ . -Horciz made .a.. motion to.approve the s1te,design,
with conditions)as.agreed upbh- by .the Architectural and 'Site
Design. -Review -cqmmitte&.-
AYES 7 NOES ..0, ABSENT O
ADJOURNMENT: There.being no-furthdr business, the meeting adjourned e(t
'11:50 p.m.
Chairman,
7 "1 ` �I. , 1". 1 � 4".
A—. '117 !,il i ijz�qy,. it 11617 1, 1 ]1 0
tl
Ail
TY RPETALEM
it IA
t.
tk. `DEPT'.
Y
. mo
our Ififbim"at'lon'
It'll; 1 17" 11�
Your t Action
q4,f
F,
IS
Nof�_-eAdl lRfturh
N
I'-
11 ,IIT leR 1.
Tn�g !,D (�,I�a
IN, N
n, _en 4f l ft�
r- m �ap t
opy
H
a
lt� ,
V j;
..................
V,7,,
it
SUBJECT Minutes'
�Tll�.filfig Cbin_Wiss,i,6h-.
40,
;epZe,m r- it
TExt,
V"
°:Ii. ljj� 4 ,6"+I
e
"In . .. ... �in°g.-,Ivh-d ;,P1aqn,,1hg-" ;d '1voi
'p"
R 6,4o,n i rig 'On': e,,-, e a "Pager -�6 comid -,`pa r., a g.r,a p h;�- `thee r r ox is loi
I �.%- I , J, 1, "ll -, 1aL 1.4" 1, -1 .- . :�. 11'
s e
41 p,� I . ? , .-
�a;st , 1. t"ry
"In f, -*i.n,e.,, -sit ei�
V�X `n,p"11_ i rA.t' r,tfhiaft�,'&&.el1p,,. 5,
ll,�46p. n -:I, ri ze, T h bti `�Pld,g tl,�]�,�e,'_Iaz t ai,p`ii,,,
b,o,tt, op, 'c -ti�� p`a� `Vh-d- u
in& f M. t, e' gle '0 alh,ante
kb-ll 'if, S� jr
F �y j, I Ivy v 7"
m `k" r 'lit f -h
aj e, pAr:co,vi:s d, op Jrle,14 x a. -a an, b -
,lhlet, ox" Imagic-6- ,py,avid
s.fd',6s �a iji, the t d' le
_., , I, , 31 �., x _�� I- , - `Jv .1, 1 7 �. l, -11 it .,N.
t e- pars _nlg.�, -
kJ`
for ri drll� cl e el tt s
rowex s,
tl
t;
;I lt it 11 j1%
tlj�j 4, if
ill ht ir "ll
Ti `oma;s,
h
44"
v, F
"En g 1 er.
A§sM,.- "Ca-ty n E�
T 1ill
IF'
c iD .5
_qs
A
�q
V*4
44pham'It
41:
A
111p f
-it _"o
L I -T
.1h liz
-Till u;,31': 1
2�
"
`A. IIG'E N D' A'
PETALUMA CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16,, 1917'5„
I
REGULAR` ,. ETI
I I
" CITY COUNCIL,.GHAMBERS, :
CI'TY HALL .. a l' , , "'" PETALUMA'; 'CALIFORN,IA'
,.
ALLEGIANCE' TO'" THE'
PLEDGE ALLEG.I
_ --
FLAG.`
„ I . qli w '1,, II. ',°� m N ,
i; I wy • u
I
ROLL CALL:Comm.,
vl,tl
Bond Head
d Hi1.ligo,ss, Horciza' Popp,1,4 G
atrs
We
t
W-tight :G
. N
STAFF. Dennis
• ,,,
Boehlj;e,, Planning Director,."to. , i
APPRO:VAL ;OF ,MINUTES
„
CORRESPONDENCE
CQW$8NT'CALENDAR,:I
1).,,,-,w,Roger_'Quintana;_;.1210 Sa'n_R'afael.;D`rive: Site°design,°
review to allow an,8,-foot high screen fence on. th'e
"
rear property line 'adjacent+'tp,'Lakeville Highway.
2), Young- America Homes: hll Modification of PUD. site
design,lfor the medical and prof ession al'building,
:portion of the Greeribriar 'Planned Community D'istr'ict
locatedIon Maria+'�. Drive nearPark Lane. t
,11 ,j
`THE'rGREAT PETALUMA „
I
EIQ_,evaluation and.(site' design.° rev'iev,.considerat bn for "
- - Q
MILL, 1876 E1, .I
Skip S
p y p of Sommer & Ry".an Enter-
plans, submitted
I,
EVALUATION &'SIT E
' ee- hase Iommer
rises for 'a• th' ro osal ti emode
p r p p p to r l� and
0
DESIGN REVIEW:II
11
revitalize, a- .number of older, b'uildin'gs'':consisting of
II „„downtownarea,.
near uma core
ly",; two blocks of the Peta'1„
LOIS THO 10
ion
Public 'Hearing, to consider. , • ,, by '
MAI RESTAURANT) ''-'US E
-Thompson allow the', conuprslon Of asplo,rtion, of
I' ''
PERMIT U9-75 &.'SITE
anlexistinnonoconformin _residential use „
g g in a C- H a
DESIGN REVIEW;
District to re'staundalso site Idesign �revi'ew L.
Dinsiderationsfor the project.
4
' /' ,
ublic He Or in g Environirien
1) Puedti'onnaire
LANEGA EIENEVALUATION
for rezoning/pre1zoning of the'1Boapact
Q... e a
g
.Q
&' ;REZONING/PRE,ZONIW II
Avenue/Paula La'n&, area. of
Z11-75, 75, Z13-7'5
2) Public Hearing to consider a, compromiseplan)„foli the
& ,Z14 75;” ' °''•' ”
g .,
rezonin °/prezonn of :the Bodega-Ay';enue%,'Paula'°Lane'
g
h
area .to, R-1-20;.000. and R-1-40, 000 ,,,D'istrictsl,
GENERAL RLAN &
Public . to consider modifications' to the General
ENVIRONMENTAL .DESIGN
,He'aring
Plan and Environmental De.si.gn Plan'to effect conformity I
PLAN MODIIFICATIONS ;
be,tw,e:en 'the' General.' Plan, Environinen,tal,',Desiµg" IPl'an,, ',ad
the, :Zoning, Ordinance.
Jjl