Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/02/1974,.. .,; A G E N D A PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 2, 1974 " REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL': Comm. Balshaw, B°ellovich, H:illigo.ss, Mattei, Popp, Waters, Bond STAFF: Frank B. Gray, Act Director of Community Development, APPROVAL OF MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE USE ?ERMIT U1 - - Pub'lic Hearing to consider the application of DANIEL P.,KRAKORA: Daniel P. Krakora for a Use Permit to allow a „dwe•Ili n g group consisting of two existing single- family dwellings and a third single - ' family dwelling to be constructed on a site con"taining approximately 3.2 acres having frontage at 515 Cherry Street and 626 Laurel Street in a R- 1- 6,5:0`0 District. a� SITE DESIGN REVIEW- Daniel P. Krakora °s proposal to construct a DANIEL P.,FKRAKORA: sin gle = family dwelling on a site with two existing* sin`g'le- family dwellings for a site located at 515 Cherry Street and 626 Laurel Street. MObIFICATION T,O.THE Manuel Pacheco has requested modification to S,UBDIVISIO:N °ORDINANCE:- the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a flag lot on flat land and a lot depth of less than 100' feet on a Parcel Map Subdivision for his property at 110 Edith Street. ADJOURNMENT M I N U T E S PETAL,UMA CI,T- Y ,PLANN.IIVG COMMISSION JANUARY 2, 1974 ~: REGULAR METZN 7:30 P.M CITY .C6Uii& L, CHAMBER S, "CITYHAZ PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT. Comm. Balshaw, Bellov ch., Bond, Hilligoss, waters A SENT: Comm: Mattei, Popp STAFF: Frank B: Graff, Ag,ting Director of Community Development APPROVAL 'OF MINUTES.: The °.minutes of December 18, 1973 were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE: Mr. Grav advised the Comm ss.on that with regard to SB 716i Chap'ter,,, 1,166, the Conflict of Interest Adt, ,the League of California Cities had put out an T explana'tory` publication and two copies were available for review by the Commissioners. The Commission was advised that the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors had furnished copies of a report entitled, "About 'the Sonoma County Trans- portation.Planninca effort which related to the program for the balanced transportation system for the future Sonoma County. A copy of this report was furnished to each of the Commission - ers. Mr. Gray reminded,7the Commissioners about the offer from ache Division of Highways to furnish a'speaker to discuss the relationship between transportation planning and' land use planning, noise, -the Noise Element of 't'he General Plan, and/or'land, uses commensurate with noise genera- ' ted on adjacent transportation facilities. This Sp.eaker's °Bureau had been suggested for both the City Council. and Planning Commission members in March, 1973; however, no action had been taken to set a date: Mr. Gray informed the Commission he felt it would be 'advisable for the Commission to °' reques•t such a presentation .relative to the proposed Noise Element to the General Plan which must be completed by September 20, 1974 USE PERMIT" Ul -7,':9 . The elevatio:ns.of 'the new house proposed to be DANIEL•P.,KRAkORA• built on the site covered by the Use Permit appli- cation were presented to the members of the Commission for rev dw. The proposal for the requested dwelling °group was explained by'Mr. Gray, who also advised that the Fire Chief had • withdrawn the requirement for the fire hydrant. City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes, January 2, 1974 The Public Hearing was opened. Chairman Bond queried what the City's standing was regarding fr6ntage on two streets. Mr. Gray clarified that the proposed house would only be serviced by one and the two existing houses sea would also be serviced by one driveway. Discussion followed regarding the width of the new driveway and it was determined to change the condition to a "minimum width of 20 feet." Dri Krakora addressed the Commission and ques- tioned what would be required by the parcel map condition of approval. Mr. Gray advised that the City Engineer required a parcel map showing the, metes and bounds description. The parcels of land that would have ave to be described were indicated on the map of the area. Dr. Krakora informed the Commission that his surveyors had indidated there might be problems in obtaining the required description because of the number of parcels involved and present avail- able descriptions of these parcels. He had been informed it might an entire survey of the adjacent sixteen parcels as well as the existing parcel which would be more expense than • he cared to incur'. He therefore wished to with- draw the"rear portions of the parcels at 634 and 636 Laurel St. from the proposal. _.Dk.'Krakora also stated he did not know how to to ahead with the landscape plans as his land- sca ' pe architect had advised him to wait until after the house was built to see what would be best for the site. Comm.'Bellovich asked if the exclusion of the two rear lot portions would make a difference to the proposal. Mr. Gray advised that the lot was large enough for the proposal from a planning aspect without that portion. The Public Hearing was closed. Comm. Waters made the motion to approve the use Permit with conditions as recommended by the staff with ,the exception of the fire hydrant and the addition of "minimum" width of 2b feet in relation to the driveway. Comm. Balshaw seconded the motion. 11 , AYES .5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 -2- ty.. P etaluma. "Planni.ng Commission K notes, "J 2, 1974 . SIC_ SITE DE N. REVIEW The recommended rond - of approval of the DANIET,` P. KRAKORA" F Site benign Itei �e�y Gommi.ttee were read. Mr. Gray siaggested alloia4iho the app- icant Up to a year to submit the landscape plans and also suggested .. changing the�dr`iveway requirements to read "minimum" width of 20 feet. The Commission agreed with these changes. Dr. Krakora was asked if he understood the condi- tions of approval and was agreeable, and he replied that he understood and would comply. Comm.; Bellovich made ­the motion to approve the recommendation of the Site Design Review Committee with conditions as amended and Comm. Hilligoss seconded the motion. - AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 MODIFICATION TO THY Mr. Gray explained,why the modification of the SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE re q ua:r;ements. of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow S REQUIREMENT - MANUEL lot a flag lot and a f less than 100 feet in PACHECO: _ depth was requested. for the property at 110 Edith Street. The findings that the Planning Commission 'must make to approve the modification were read. . The Community Development Department felt that the ,. subject property was large enough to be divided into two lots and would meet the requirements of the Zoning OrdinAncei and accordingly recommended approval of the modification. . Comm. Balshaw questioned the fire hydrant require - ment and Mr. Cray clarified that the Fire Chief had withdrawn this requirement, as he felt the 20 -foot driveway "would be adequate for a fire truck. Chairman Bond asked for clarification regarding the f <inding that the Commission must make which states "that the modification is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the.pet %tioner." Mr. Gray explained tha't,'th,e lot was large enough to accom- modate two - parcels in the R -1-6,500 District; it would give the developer the right to develop his land to the highest use possible in this district; and it also seemed to be the most Logical and.feasible- manner of development. Discussion regarding flag lots followed and it was also clarified that an existing dwelling would be torn down. -3- 6 C- 'of - Petaluma Planning Commis`sion Minutes, January 2, 1974 Chairman - Bond asked.Mr, Pacheco if he had anything to add and he replied that he only wanted to improve the proper ty "and felt that his plan was th -e most 'feasibl.e manner of handling the property. Comm. Hil:ligoss made the motion to approve the modification,, .and'Comm,j Waters seconded the motion. AYES 5 N ©ES a 0` ABSBNT 2 DT HER BUS`SNESS: . 'Chairman Bond advised the Commission that Comm. . PP Comm.,,.. would be the new represen- o n tativesdto rve io it ligoss _` the Se Design.Review Committee - and Comm. Bal'shaw 'wouild serve on the Subdivision Committee. :Comm. Bal_'shaw gues;'tioned why review of site dessi`gns were- necessary at the Planning Commission level if- there was action by the Site Design Review Committee, .M;. Cray mentioned the consent calendar concept, of- approval and stated, if the Commission wished this 'sys =tem coul.d.be tried. Comm. Balshaw felt this would be sufficient but expressed con - cerri that adequate lan'ds'caping be provided. at the s'ite design review level. Comm-. Balshaw asked when the study session on EIR requirements was - to `be. Mr. Gray sugge'sted'waiting unt 1 the firrst EIR prepared under the new guide- .lines was submitted,, which would be in the near future, so that it could be used as a guide. The Commission agreed to this idea. ADJOURNMENT: There bung no. further, business the meeting adjourned at 8 : 3 0 p.m,. vice C irman i11