HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/06/1973A G E N 'D A
PETAMPIA CITY PLANNIING C01' MARCH 6.,
RE GULAR MEETING
T: 30. P.P.
CITY COUNCIL Cfi CITY HALL
PETALUMA,
PLEDGE
..4N'QET'O _THE: FLAG
ROLL ChUj: Comm Balshavi Bond
- - I Daly Hood
:Schmelz Maters Popp
1973
CALIFORNIA
STAFFIt I William C. McG ' iver-n, Director, of, Community
Development
Richard D. A. Ande•s=, Associate "Planner
Trank Gray, As'soc'ia•e Planner
PET11LOMA VROPF
0antinuation of Public Hearing to consider the EIR
REVIEW OF.
sub mitted in support of the propos P.C..D. deve'lop-
- EN,VIR0NMEN,T-
ment located' on the hortheasterly 'sido of ,Lakeville
ACT REPO ff-1
4
14ghway bet�7e Cat�a Grande Road, and Frates -Road-.,
PETALUMA PROPERTIES
cont-inuation of 'Puhlic Hearing to consider reque's'
REZONING ZlR-72':
for rezoning from, - ca R- ; 1- 10,0:0 (One-Family" Resid'eh
teal) aistriCt and "A " to a
R. Q. D. (P 1 , anned Cc " mmuni-ty) District 0% rope- k.1ty-
L ,
g
lotated on thin northeasterly, side of- �evvi,l,le. k- h
way between C Grande Road and
YOUNG & STORES,-
C. -Inua,.tion Publ Hearing to :consider request
. �72:
REZORG IN Z'2" I-
for. pOzoning from, a R-1-10,10'00 (One- Family Resider,-
t1a'l tri,ct) and- "A" (Ag ricultural) ,District to a
-9
CH-PUD (Highway Comme rcial- Planned Unit, Deve'lopmen•t)
Dis trict, located in the � area geperall�r- hbunded Y
Ca sa Grande Road', Lake-Ville Highway and the s,64th;-
east ektp,nsion of. South I- Blvd.
REVIEW OF
C-ox! of Public Hearing c6psidet the EIR
tNVI RONMENTXL IfIVACT
submitted by Cbndibtt Ent,er � `support ris,os, Inc. in ugport
REPORT - TIESTRIDGV
of tbeir proposed PUD developmen-t - to, located
PUiD DEVELOPPAENT:
south of Sunnyslope Road and We of Stte''et
ektehs.i6ft.i
WNTATTV MAP -
1 UN,ItS
#1 & #211
Cbndibtti Enterprises, Inc:. Tentative Map for pr#
pos PiTj:D development of Westridg,0_ Units #1 & _#2
to be located south of Sunny,s,lope -Road and west "of
Street egteh'slon.
,Planning Commis s i.On Agenda, 1 6, i
OND7OTT: l N'T°EF, -- Public llea.r. ng to consido'r request for' re,z
PRISES, INC. 'Units 1 and 2 as n
shown on tie General. Deve:l.apmen't
REZONING 7,6, -e'7 Plan of the V,7estri'dg:e Planned Community from.'P.;C.v.
- °Piannc,d Community U'istriet, to I ? . U ,:D.- Planned Unit
Deve,lo DistrLct, located south of Sunnys'l ope
Road' and G'e,$ of' "I" Street extension.
OTHER Bt7�SINESS: Introduction to the Planning Commission of a. .request
su_hmit,ted by Wilhelm .Z.i,pp.erle fo`r a Us.e Pormi•t to
Allow proposed enlar-gmeerit of the . existing
European Car Service aiuto repa -'r and parts sales,
operation at 700 Petalurna 'Blvd:. South in ,a C' -
Highway Commercial D'istr'ict.
ADJOURNMENT. ,
V
M I N U T'E S
PETAL;UMA, :CITY° PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1973
REGULAR MEETING 7 :3'<0 P..M.
CITY 'COUNCIL CHAMBERS, C3T.Y HALL PETALUMA., CALIFORNIA
PRESENT:,. Comm.: BalShaw, Bond, Dal Y" Popp r *.Schme'lz Waters
*Gomm S clime z l,e f t at 11 :�,2 5
ABSENT ; Comm. 'Hood
S TAFF: Wil'liat C'.. McGivern, .Director' of, Commuriit.y Development,
Richard D A. Anderson, Associate Planner
Frank B.'Gray, Associate Planner
APPROVAL ;OF `MINUTES.; The> minutes of February .21.,' ,1973, were approved
as submitted.
PETALUMA PROPERTIES The!. Commission was informed by Mr: McGivern this
REVIEW' OF evening they had been- furnished with an additional
ENVIRONMENTAL addendum staff report supplementing the staff
'IMPACT' REPORT report dated March 1., 1973. He reminded the Com-
mission that the continuance of this
been due to, a delay hearing
had
' ' y n response from the
Route #11,6 bordering t 'egardi:ng' d +evelopment of
Division of H'ighwa s r
ghway,s' letterg dhis
o project. The. Division.
f Hi ated March 5, .19'73, was
tYien read which somewhat modified the requirements.
:of their previous letter,' dated February '2:0, ,197.3.
Mr McGivern informed the Commission that the
former staff; report made very careful assessment
of other factors. such ,as mitigation of drainage "and
other sundry problems.'oh the site. With all addi--
tional information received,•the staff is now
ready to accept the Environmental Impact Report
and recommend it for.approval.
P
• . The public 'hear 'n g which ways= previous y. continued .
was opened and Chairman. Popp .asked .i.f the appl
cant.- shad; anything to ,add . Mr. John Loun, i ib
p si.
representing - the applicant, replied they wished.
to .leave it • as it was. No comments were offered
by. --the -audience ' and the public hearing was .closed.,
Comm. . Balshaw as_'kedif acceptance of the EIR would
mean . that it was fad tual.: and, he was told "t'hs was
the intent. Comm: Waters felt the .
stated the problems correctly on the'EAS and EIR
.and thus enabled these problems 'to be. met and dealt
with., accordingly 'ri future stages of this develop -,
merit.
.:Comm.' Waters then made the motion that..the EIR as
submitted by' Petaluma Properties be. 'for - rde.d .to
the, City , Counc 1, with the recommendation. for ac.
eptance hereof and t c Comm. Daly seconded the.
motion."
AYE'S .6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1
PETALUMA Because of the l,orn.g, continuance. of .this develop-
PROPERTIES' ment, Mr. Mc.Givern.briefl;y reviewed the staff
REZONING Z1._8 =7 °2,s report, dated January 11, 1973. `
The public hearing which was previously continued
was opened.to allow the applicant and the audience
an opportunity to comment.
Mr. John Lounibos, representing the applicant,
asked - the 'Commission 'to consider the benefits
that would accrue to'the City from the development
of the K. -Mart facilities,it He :further stated he
realized the EDP designation for the proposed
K -Mart property was for.neighborhood commercial;
however, he could not find any - exact definition
that would limit this type zoning,to a certain
amount of feet or Acre
- Chairman. Popp ask'ed,.i,f there.were any comments
from the audience and no was given. The
public hearing was closed and the Commissioners
were '&sk if they had any further questions.
Comm:: Waters asked Old Lakeville Highway was
to�be improved.. The staff. indicated the City
plans to abandon,that road and' therefore, the
plan calls for abandonment o„f'old Lakeville High-
way. .A general'circulat.ion,plan to provide access
from McDowell ' had, been developed; how
ever; if improvements wer.&required for Old,Lake-
ville they would decrease. the number of
units and develop the road-
Comm. .,Balsha_w referred to Section 1.9 -600 of the
Z'o'ning Ordinance, relating to the - establishment
of a PCD and queried factors_ surrounding the
Planned Community Program..
Mr.-McGvern replied that the ideal situation
would *be to get a PCD' map ,alonq with the rezoning
request completely outlining what the project
would look like, `but this, would 'be excessively
costly and very demanding of developers. - It was
his opinion `that the PCD is the first stage of
the development process and "should not be so
precs'e that it is not flexible enough .to handle
problems that might arise.
Comm. Balsh'aw, questioned a future ;school. site on
or near, the property and waa°tol.d that the staff
, .did not put emphasis on locating :an -, elementary
school on this particular site because the O'ld.
Adobe. - School : District .had, indicated that th;e. n.& -xt
school site would not Likely be �in - that area.*
Comm.. BaIshaw questioned the density. factor of
the development. He was: infOrm,ed- that there, i ' s "
proposed a 4.9' over-all- density and 5., 9 units per
acre, for just the residential ppr
Comm. Bal felt that , eventually .Lakeville
'Highway would have to -b�e- widened ,. and a decision
should 'be made at thi:s, time . to widen to the 'north
or south as 'part of this action. Mr. McGivern
±,epliled that as part of th_e :zoning,, �concern shoulo
be made., part of the record about the future d - is-
1 - e -
position - of , Lakev " lle Highway; and at. t he -
the subd tentative maps are processed" by
the - Planning Commission, and City :Ceuncilj somef
determination should be made as to what.-area
should, be widene and what, dedications are to :be
made.
Comm Da, - ly referred to a recent. newspaper article
.regarding a Pos�aible, at-tack by builders in the
area �on the EDP. and wanted to know., if this attack
were successful .
' sful. would it an opening for
these '241 u to be built this even-, . though
they -had been given an allocation,. Mr. Mc6ivern
f elt, - that the City had eho 9 `h. other instruments to
satisfy the de ,of the community to control
future res developments. Furthermore,
re,
two additi-ona'l check-po were e available to the
C.ommi-s lon and Council ,namely, the necessary PUD
zoning for the residential portion of the develop-
men - L and the tentative map approval. Mr. Lounibos.
remanded the 'Commission 'that,lit could be possibly
2-to 3years before a judgment would.: be f inal if
appeals. ls, were taken., -Mr. 8'4_ok&s inIormed the Coin-
mi-ss,ion that they had no intention of developing
a - ny•resIdence this year rega if a !suit was
1,1
'ion to
Comm:. Daly mad&the mot approve the PCD re-
on . secon the motion. -
4 .ers s
secon g and Comm,. Wat
AYES. 6 , NOES ' O ABSENT 1
'McGivern reviewed. the
YOUNG STOKES Mr. 1 e m-1s:-
proposal,. f th Co
S, . i0 and f urther h (Planned Unit.
-
REzZONINGL Z2 ri a er 9tated this " tib
Development) =was the 16crical-.first '.phase of- the
project as it would provide funas for the, extension
o?f SO. McDowell BIVd.. -and for other improvement:s
to streets in the immediate area He;reminded the
Commission that it also bordex,s, commercial develop-
ment. at the corner of Casa Grande Road and Lakeville
Highway and the staff felt., that further extension
of this designa-tion, would- not be 'detrimental to. the ,
area,.
-3-
The public hearing which was previously continued
was opened and the applicant was asked if he had
anything further to add. Mr. Lounibos, representing
the applicant, replied he had not unless there
were further questions. Chairman Popp asked the
audience if they had any comments and no response
was given.
Mr. Lounibos informed the Commission that he under -
stood there was a letter from the Old Adobe School
District in support of the.K -Mart development and
Mr. McGivern verified that fact.
Chairman Popp closed the public hearing and asked
for comments from the Commissioners.
Comm: Waters asked what this property was desig-
nated as on the General Plan. Mr. McGivern clari-
fied that the Gener`al'Plan, as of March 5, 1973,
designated the entire area as medium density resi-
dent.ial. He added that at the time the recent
changes to the General Plan were proposed, the
staff had recommended commercial for this portion
of'property; however, the Commission determined
that.it might prejudice their thinking on this
particular case and asked for the designation of
medium density instead. The-,EDP designation is
presently for neighborhood commercial.
Comm. Balshaw felt that although he had no objection
to .this particular development, that rezoning
should not be granted that would not be in conform-
ance with the General Plan.
Comm. Bond asked if the staff's opinion was that
this proposal is superior . to the EDP since this
is a,requirement to effect a change of zoning.
Mr., McGivern replied that the word "superior" as
defined for the E.D:P. is as follows: The develop -
ment.as proposed is really better and more desir-
able for thiss better for the neighborhood
and. the community. Staff information and informa-
tion furnished by the developer indicates a number
of favorable or superior aspects for this site
development proposal. By the same token, there
'are some unfavorable aspects_ as brought out in
the EIR• however, based on the existing facts and
testimony the staff felt the development would be
desirable for.the community.. Mr. McGivern directed
the.,ir attention to Section 1.9 -900 of the zoning
Ordinance and stated that if the Commission felt
these findings had been qualified, favorable action
should be taken.
-4
Comm. Balshaw reiterated it was his op,inioa it
was improper at this time be6dus.e. of nonconfbxrnanc "e�
with:the General Plan designation and m ade , ade the
motion that the,re-ze request be denied at this
time until the EDP and, General. Plan are brought
,up for discussion on thi.s area. Comm.
Bond seconded the motion.
AYES 3 NOES 3 ABSENT, 1
The motion was thereby defeated.
Comm. Wa asked Mr. McGivern f or . a possible
alternative and was told that Commission
could-make aft-amendment..' to the General Plan at
the next meeting 'to change the_ to
either Transitional or 'Commercial, whichever they
f elt would be more appropriate. He further sug-
'gested a favorable motion Could be amended to
include directing the -staff to immediately re
nize, this, area as a priority Change. on the EDP
and General Plan with the assistance of the EDP
Committee.
'Comm. Daly made the motion to ! the converse of the
former- motion and 'Incorporated into the-motion
that -- the Planning staff- 'be di-rect take' action-
necessary to, get the. commercial designation in
. into the''EDP and , Plan before
the Junp 30, 1973, deadline. Comm. Waters, seconded
the motion.
AYES 3 NOES 3 ABSENT 1
The motion .was defeated.
Comra -. Bal shaw suggiaste4'denyin g the rezoning. and
send. it to the . City Council on appeal to expedite
it. - • Comm,. Waters made the mot-ion to approve. the
rezoning and that the Commission recommend to the
.,City Council that,.. the General Plan and the EDP
,be, amended accordingly. The, motion died for. lack
-of a.
'Mr. Frank Gray addressed the_ (aommislpn for direc:-
tion-inasmuch as when the staff had recommended
t" he commercial change on the. General : Plan, the
disagreed,, as they did n, t want to pre -
sesion dis. 0
judice their opinion on this particular caste;
however at this time the Commission. feels, because
-
-the. General Plan is not designated as,-commercial;
th °at we cannot grant the rezoning. He, 'therefore,.'
asked,•'what procedure to follow next and Comm.
Balshaw re that the change _to the'' EIDP 'should
-,bemade first and then the appropriate change to
j;he'.-.General Plan.
Comm Daly informed the Commission that if no
further action was taken 'at this :time, the' app`li-
cant could appeal to the City Council Chairman
Popp then terminated discussion on the subject
rezoning.
-REVIEW OF
Mr referred to. the recommendation of-
ENVIRONMENTAL,
the ,staff o:f, February 16', 1.933, that the E'IR not
IMPACT. REPORT -
be accepted until the information required by
WESTRIDGE PUD•
the reviewing agencies had been provided. The
DEVELOPMENT
addendum report,, dated March 1,, 1973, was then
i
read- which. stated that the ap:plicant had submit-
ted two amendments toathe E;I.R and that the.
Engineer, now feels the EI_R i,.s satisfactory. The
taff feels that the EIR, with "the two addendums,
presents., an accurate. Version of all aspects, of
the envi-ronmental'impact of the .proposed project
and recommends the .EIR be, forwarded to the City
Council with a recommendation for acceptance.
Chairman Popp opened the public hearing and asked
if'. the applicant was represented.
Mr. Art Condiott'i, the, applicant., 112'0 Wikiup
Drive, Santa Rosa, to.o'k the floor. He stated -the
staff report spoke for itself, that he had endeav-
ored to meet all the requirements' of the staff
and. -would answer any questions..
Mr. ,, .Dave Lindberg, r;eside_nt. of Sunnyslope Road.,
asked. the staff to give the. recommendation °s..on-
the t- raffic pattern, :and the City Engineer ' s
feelings towards traffic. The portion pertaining
to traffic in the ,EIR was then read, and also the
addendum thereto which c'lari'f -ed that "I" S'tre`et
would handlfe the of the traf f i , 7E)%,.
and Road. the. ,remainder of 30%.
Mr. D;,lck Li'eb stated the report. said that most of-
-the >foot tr.aff,ic to McN'ear Park would be on -Sunny
slope Road - ° and felt this should be considered.
Recess was• called at .9:40 p.m. and the meeting,
read-journed at 9:50 p.m..,
Mr. Clarence Galardi,, "I Street, Extension,
questioned the lydrolog -c'al aspects of the . creek
and, Mr. Jon Anderson,, the project eftg nee`r.,, ;wa'a;
called upon for clari:ficat - ion;. He statedt that.
the additional run -off factor;. be only 4. -5%
because .'only the 'lower, portion is being developed
.and hydrolo 9 - ically it',would not-add much"' water- to.'
the creek. Mr. MMc.Givern added that the City of..
Petaluma requires all,. flood 'control, be' properly
6,_
engineered and in accordance with the Sonoma.
County Flood .Co ntrol standards in order not, to
cause inundation to 'other, pr,bpert'ies .
Mr. Gilardi questioned removal of trees and street'
maintenance and was told ,that "the actual alignment
had not been determined and that the City is
res'ponsibl'e for all streets in the City.
Mr. ban Libar`le, 13,19 'T" Street, stated that "I"
S,tr:eet was already , a speedway and wanted to know
how it would be controlled. Mr. McGivern informed
him the street would have, certain speed limits
and be constructed to. certain standards., „Speed
control was the responsibility of the Police De-
partment. Mr. Lbarle asked if the EIR wa -s ap-
proved, 'what would the 'Commssi.on approve in
essence; and was informed of the procedure of sub -
miss'ions of EAS's and EIR'sby Mr. McG`ivern, who
added that the Commission would find that,,as far
as can be determined, all items have been complied
with if it was accepted
.Mr. James Colwe,hh, 1;176 "I St reet, stated his
house h'ad been there. since 1:892 and asked who
would be, responsible i� he had flooding for the
first time, Mr. McG °ivern replied that was a
legal q,uest'ion aril that all the Commission could
do was see that the development was designed in
accordance with the Flood, Control's requirements.
Patricia .Blair asked if any other animals other
than ,fish. were taken into consideration in the
EAS and Mr.= Lindber"q interjected that perhaps they
should be made aware , of -the 26 points on the EAS
so the public was aware of what was being accepted'.
Mr.., McGivern briefly exp`laihed the, categories
covered on the EAS and the added EIR. Accordingly,
the Commission shou be now assured, in view of
this professional, assessment, that the report is
accurate to the best knowledge available Mr.
McGve'rn added that if there were any areas to
be challenged, then the 'deficiency should be
challenged'from a bona fade level of professional
expertise and not merely from suspicions
Mr. Robert Foster, Mountain View Avenue Extension,
and Mt. Ralph Pelton, "V' Street Extension,• ob-
jected inasmuch as they.did not know what the EIR
contained and, therefore, would not know how to
challenge it
Mt. Frank Gray informed the Commission that.a
spec al meeting with the citizens concerned had.
been, held on March 4, 1 to answer any question's
so, .that the Commission would -not have. to hear the
same things that had been explained to the cit.i.z
'this evening and they had been informed that files
were open to them to review.
-7-
Mr. George Stamp, Grant Avenue,, asked if there
were a time limit regarding the report and was
,told there was 'a time schedule on the deveIdpment
- itself, a 3 to year program, but that the EIR
was a Permanent record,qnd did not have a, time
JiMitati
The public h.eardng was c and the Commissioners
were asked if they had an:( questions.
Comm. BAlshaw commented that the City Engineer,
in reviewing EIR's,, should comment regarding
effect on, traffic as he didn't feel the Commi
s.ion should make a determination of what is
hazardous-. He also felt there should be a time
lag between the E-IR and the tentative map so that
the public, could review the EIR.
Comm. Balshaw made the motion to accept the EIR
and Comm. Zchme,lz seconded the motion
AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1
Comm. 'Daly asked if the EIR would go to the City
, I
Council with recommendation for approval and Mr.
M'cGiver:n replied that it would, He also reminded
the audience that,.i,f they Wished to challenge any
part of the EIR at that time they could examine
the files, but they should be prepared to challenge
with , expertise testimony.
CONDIOTTI The staff report was read by Mr. MdGivern which.
ENTERPRISES, INC. -recommended approval with conditions as stated,
REZONING Z6-73:
The. pub lic -hea . ring was opened and the developer
asked, if he 'wanted, to add, • Anything. Mr. Art
Corkd- stated all action taken had been in ac-
cordance with PCD he would answer
any quest-ions.
Mr. Richard Anderso . n outlibed.,the perimeter of
the proposed development and showed the audience
what would be entailed in th&PUD.., Where the park0
would be,, et A qlari,f;ication was requested of
PCD and PlaD and it was expl'& ned'that the density
for PUD Was set.out for 6 units per acre in the
EDP and that the proposal showed a density factor
for the entire area bounded- by 1 'I" :Street, Sunny-
slope Road ad and the prolongation of Perrington of
some 5,- units per acre. The lar ' ' area shown
on,-the map would probably average out 4 to 5 units
per acre depending on the - lot. and slope. Mr.
Condiotti then c1arifIed that this particular
portion would-be 3.7 to 3.8 units per acre in
density.
A que'stion was
, apartments , and
b °6_ing consider
zoned area and
would' be 'built
zoning.
:a-sked if' the PUD could contain
Mr. Gray e:KpI_'ained that the arei
ad for PUD.was not the en_t_Ire'P_CD
that only single - family- dwe
in conjunction with this 'PUD re=
Q'UP:stiqn-'s were raised . as, to type of hous . ing, price,
ce,
federal subsIdies,. and lot s.ize- Mr. Condiotti
replied that price -range would be.no
thihq below
$30,Q00 and probably beyond $4,o for, What .. is
built, this year with in lat-ionary- :cost . s riding-
-to "$35,000 to '$ next year-. There will 'be.
approximately six plans+ and three to eleva-
tibns oI each with squ'4re footage,ra:ngin `fj:,om
1,500 to 2,60 pe*r' unit., Mr. C6ndiotti added
th'ere 'would, be no federal subsidies as they had
been disbanded and'he did not believe y
the °would
use: FHA financ * i.ng although FHA r6striction'$
been made, known and , included on the subdivision
map.
The -public hearing was then closed.
Comm., Balshaw, made -the Motion to grant the',PUD
rezoning and Comm. Waters seconded the motion.
AYES 6 NOES :0 ABSENT 1
WESTRIDGE The conditi.ons applying. - to 'this tentative map
UN 1 2 - were 'read by Mr. MdGivern, and. also sections of
TENTATIVE MAP: the City Engineer's letter dated February 21.
1973, relating to off,sIt'
1; e improvements.
Mr. Jon Anderson, . pro,j ect engineer f or the de-
vel was called,- upon to clarify improvements
he ut i i
,and ilizedthe tentative map to,'explan i
- development of, "I" Street, after which a discus-
slon regarding r s,',idewal , ks..on Sunnyslope
Roadl. 'Mr. Anderson - read the portion.-of the City
Engineer's letter relating to sidewalk treatment-
Thee quest was raised as 'to, why ,reference: was,
made "to McNear 8chodl . not Grant 'School and
Mr,. Phil Trowbridge explained:t-hat the.sc-h.0ol
district was not.s pecific a bu, b t� which school
,
would be, util d Mr.
ize McGovern added that was,
the reason why the, City Engineer had taken the
stand on sidewa:lks that.,he had.
Mr. Dick Lieb f,elt that tun Road should
be developed for access to McMear'Park which he
felt would be of a. dif f eriant - ' , us , ,dge' than' the de-
veloper I s proposed Park.. Mr,. McGiVern replied
that the Subdiv e - is. for
reasonablene'as - and the require"n'ts" were
quite lengthy-.
I=
Mr. Dave.Lindberg felt that a,bike trail or
walkway should -be provided on this tentative..
map for access to McNear School and McNear Park.,
Mr. McGivern informed him that the City is
limited to what it can do as. this falls under
the - jurisdiction of'the County and those recom-
mendations can only be provided'by the Board of
Supervisors.
It was confirmed that the only acce=sses -on "I"
Street were. those as shown on the map -. Comm.
Balshaw condition- #3 and Mr. McGivern
replied that it relates to trees, types; and when
they are to be planted,,, etc. Comm. Balshaw felt
that Section 19- 80:2.7 of the Zoning Ordinance
should be a condition on. the , final: map.
Comm... Balshaw a -ls`o questioned the possibility of
a. school on the site and. the park area and. was
told the school district thought there was suf-
f ficien,t room in.Grant Elementary_ School and that
the-park area was 11 acres for the whole PUD.-
Mr. Condiot.ti.replied to Comm..Balshaw question
regarding driveways that they were according to
.City s=tandards, 2.2 feet.n length, and he had.no
objection to an 18 foot,wide driveway.
Mr'..Dick Lieb stated he wished to thank the staff
for all their efforts in supplying the citizens
answers to items of their concern and also for
arranging the citizens' meeting on Sunday evening.
Comm.-Waters made the motion to approve the tenta-
t- ive,map with the 19 conditions as cited., plus
the conditions as in the City Engineer's
letter of February '21, 1973. Comm. Balshaw
seconded the motion.
AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1
OTHER The Commission had been furnished documents re-
BUSI.NE_S'S:. latng to a request submitted by Wilhelm.Z'ipperle.
for a Use Permit to allow a.proposed enlargement
of the existing European Car Service auto repair
and parts sales operation at -300 Petaluma Blvd.
South .,in a C -H Highway Commerc al•Di.strk t. The
Commission was requested to set a.date.for public
hearing and agreed upon.-the next regular meeting,
March -,20, 1973. The applicant.inform_ed the Com-
miss - ion the request.was for 702 Petaluma.Blvd.
South .as w,e'll as 700 Petaluma Blvd. South.
A condition o.f. a Site Design. appr by the
Planning Commission on.J.anuary 3;.1973;•.for the
-10-
:Motel "6" development . in the Denman Flats area
wars , at a parcel map be submitted to the .City
for approval. This . °was in, ' ,
with the Subdivision Ordinance requriringl that .i.f "
?•; a private road is to be u 'ed, for a development,
it must 'be 'brought to the Planning Commission
and the. Cit,.. CoLincil for review and a
City pproval
Th item had been di'scuss.ed at Site Design..Com-
mi,ttee level. Mr McGive`rri .,infor,med' the .Commis
s:on that a 5'atisflactory parcel map had ,been
received from the ap' 1.icant_. Comm: Bald aw : ask.ed
how this affected the Police.Department, and was
told that this , is a. road that .allow`s the public
to; pass over. it u�nres,tricted and, the. only differ-
ence_ is that the City is not required 'to •maintain
it
Comm pemit„t aFnd t
that p ri v a t e' ad. be
Y P
to. :the . .
Council and Comm.'Waters seconded the motion:
AYES' 5'. • : NOES 0 ABSENT 2
ADJOURNMENT Th'e `meet; 'ng was adjourned. at 11:,50 ,p.m.
r�