Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/18/1976A G E N`b A TALUMA CITY ',P,.LANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1976 MEE TING ` 7:30 P.M. 'HALL - L. CHAMBERSi CITY PET ALUMA, CALIFORNIA The, Commission encourages 'app'lli cant - -o.t their representatives to be y4'ft' Q� a bl t the meetings -to answer questions '," - s o ­ that no agenda items need be . delCrf &:b a later date due to a lack of pertinent information. 0 `P 'E ALLEGIANCE TO 'THE FLAG ROLL . CALL Comm. Bond- Head - Hi-1-1-igoss Ho.'r VPopp Waters Wright STAFF: Dennis Bo etil e,. Planning , Dir ec tok . ' 'PRO AL 0 MIN UTES UTES CORRESPONDENCE LARRY JONAS APPEAL.OF Consideration of. an appeal,by'Larry Jonas of the PARCEL MAP CONDITIONS 'conditions of approval.bf 'three-lot parcel , .OF APPROVAL; f 'f Halsey Avenue and map for property located of 0, 0 ive .,S, tree t,.. 'ARNOLD MAIER "EIQ Envif6nmental Impact, -Qu and EVALUATION/REQtEST;FOR consideration of 'd re" dest for modification to the MODIFICATION TO THE provisions *of the Subdivision Ord'inance'submitted PROVISIONS OF THE Arnold Maier for property located. on West Street SUBDIVISI-ON ORDINANCE: qear'Juniper Court; , STAR -IT MINI- WAREHOUS Environmental Imp apt "..Que's t e eva 1. u a tion and site EIQ EVALUATION SITE design ,- rev ie,w a - proposed mini-ware- DESIfN REVIEW - "house Project t6,.'be located -at 1020 Lakeville Highway in an - M-L District,. RESTORE-A-_PORSCHE USE _Public 'Hearing to'clonsider a Use application PERMIT U2-76: submi by ..o.ndthan Early to allow the installation ...of-speclAl intetiormaterials, replacement of window gla s,and weathet seal;, minor wiring repairs, door- s . - radio -insta etc window me6ha*nism_repa ions,. located at 4234�Petauma Blvd. build'i l . in an existing u North 'in-a. C. =H District'. RONALD HARDY/MARTIN :1. "Public Hearing to-evaluate the Environmental Impact -f -- EIQ Questionnaire" and consider, the Use Permit app 'lica LU ATION/USE:,'PERMIT tion for a commercial comp1exl, including automobile - 01-76/SITE DESIGN repair, sheet metal shop - ;:: swimmi=ng pool and pool REvIEW,:+, table 'supplies, and warehousing and to be located at 821 Petaluma Blvd,. North, ..2. Site.design review for the proposed commercial complex. Petaluma City Planning Commission Agenda, February 18,"1976 EIq EVALUATION AND Public Hlearing to evaluate the Environmental,lmpaOt AUNUAL MODIF16ATT. ,QN' ue- S Qst l tonnap n e relating to Zoing"6WAAwde. modifications TO ZO ORDT'NAN(M and to consider the modifications recommebAd.a? a NO. 1072 N.C.S.: rehl&df the'annial roviek-0 Adinahce No. 1072 MCA: ADJ 0UR'Wj-1E'NjT i r -y M I N ,U "T ,;E. $ LAR MEETINGLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 18, 1976 PETALUMA 'C:ITY EGU i 7:30 P.M. I Ill ITY, COUNCIL CHAMBERS' CITY° HALL ' ' PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm. Head, Horciza waters` Wright ,h ABSENT.: Comm, H lligoss, Popp STAFF: Dennis Boehlj'e,' P lannzng Director e 7`6 we . ' �NUTES • The. m s of Februar 3, • 19 APPROVAL OF MI inut y , re app -roved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE: Mr, BoehlIie informed the Commission a memo regarding the Envi- ronmental Design Plan had been furnished them this evening and d he wished to ,di;sc.uss' it further at the endil` of the meeting. LARRY JONAS,- .APPEAL OF PARCEL. MAP CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Mr. Boehlje;;bkl'ef.ly explained' the appeal Larry Jonas of the condit' ons.'Iof approval of a proposeld'thiee -lot parcel map for property located off of Halsey Avenue and Olive Street. Chairman Horciza asked for`,a- clarification of why the sewer pumps wou16 -not be acceptable and questioned the difference between gravity flow or °sewer ; ;pumps. .in handling the sewage. Tom Hargi "si; Assistant City *Engineer; explained that the area was hill y ,, although there was an- isting sewer in Halsey Ave - nue, because of`the topography the` housea from the proposed lot split, would 'd be 'too .low to hook into �'ths'`exis.ting sewer. He also explained,, that, al though there is an existing sewer line in Olive 'Street g, t extending out to Olive „ the area in the fla 1 "0 was fairly' low, and therefore' created"a problem in sewering out that direction. Mr. Hargis explained that the objection to using ithe pumpq "system was ".mainly that the' City is in. the busi- ness of maintaining sewer lines and tfley do not maintain any private poo=p systems; therefore, the owner would have the additional cost'of installing the private: pump and maintaining it and'Ybul''d also have higher operating costs. Mr. Hargis stated that he felt the gravity system was the best method, since the homeowner could not maintain such a. pump. Chairman Hor.clza asked what the ideal solution would be for g Mr. SUrsuetr at nt the City had recommended that e is Hargis, p l sewers.n these o easement to go downtowardcant''p ` y g. o obtain an p "I " Street •and connect into an existing sewer, since this is a natural downward slope and therefore the only na "tural way' to 'sewer ;''He„ also advised there wa`s A possibil ty`of sewering from Olive Street if the low spots could - be .built up',to `enable a gravity ,sewer, but thought it might "pose problems in relation to the adjoining properties. Mr. Hargis stated he, had no actual experience with the relia- bility of sewer pumps. Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, February 18, 1976 Comm. Head requested that the requirement be' removed, sirvde he felt this was a. case where the government; interfered with the. -freedom of choice of an individual on how he intends to develop his property. He to say- if; an'ind'ividual wished "to utilize the pump system and it was adequate and did not pose a health problem,. felt -that method should be. adequate :As *fa,r as. the Planning Commiss.ion.` s concerned. Comm. Head did not think it was the intent of the government -to "dictate the type of. faci lity utilized as long as it, does not conflict 'with neigh- 'boring property interest. Comm. Waters stated he felt more discussion was-,required be,for.e. making any decisions, The applicant, Larry Jonas, stated he would prefer to have the sewer s to tem;.however, the property owner involved wou�.d not'.' allow him. to 'an easement through his property to extend the sewer " o to 'I" Street, and building up of the. adJac'ent to Olive Street would create it drainage problem fox some of the surrounding lots. He stated that,the Subdivision Ordinance stated that.na subdivision sha create Igts which, a - r e impractical to sewers yet the existing lot has been .created in- that,fashion, since Lot. 3. -is al most o t crest- of the h ill:. a nd the sewage lines are not deep enough to serva. across the crest.- Mr. Jonas stated he f'el't if these sewage lines were deeper there would be a- chance. of- sewering into the lots, Comm.. Wright questioned the, operation and eff'ic;i'ency o - sewer pumps. Mr;. Joe Burton, Project''Engineer, explained •ther operation and,.stated they were efficient and fairly maintenance fr ee. H e further explained that a separate pump would be neces sary for each house and would be part of the initial construe- Lion. The quest'i'on was raised as to whether any sewer pumps presently existed in'the City. Mr. Hargis replied that they were, allowed if it was the, only method of providing a sewer system. However, the. City °did not provide, maintenance of them and would. prefer a, ;gravity ,sewer system ,to ,provide the best possible "system for the future buyer A discussion fo_1".lowed during which it was clarified that al though th•e ,property could be` subdivided' into R-1-- &,,500 'lots with the present:,zoning,' the applicant wished to dedicate an-open. space' easement to the City which would elimin4tel the possibility of subdivision of the lots for, the next .20 years. Comm-. Bond . asked for am explanation of term "impractical to sewer.." 'Hargis, maiaitenance problems onia. h6n t cityimaint!ained n ssy v steem al having s stem. He, furt an and City. maintenance her .advised that an adjoining proper -the sewer versus obtaining y property owner has been allowed to-use the .pump system„ since his attempts to procure a 'sever `;easement we're" unfeasible. 'Chairman Horciza asked for an explanation of the fire flow problem. Joe Ellwood,, Fire Chief, explained that the City of i, , " @ 1" 1 � Petaluma ,. Cf,ty. Planning? Commission. Minutes!;' Febriiaryl 18',- 1976 7: the Ti) -ftt - ru' 'Unde�r_the�-.­,xe a -uma is gulations? of.• -,Insurance Service -1- - 500.�zonii Officer City is,.required to 'ic wheh 6, s . .. .... t ,I-.�t4here the dwellings UPP He',..' T4ent,.,' ow, o t are'. se�pdrat'�& by, 100, f eet or. more a the;. dwellings are con- A flame,, retardant:. t , pe, _roof,.,,. this standard.can.be- ,state that at the present lowered 5 P' U. Chief,.'. Ellwood & time -there .'.is no,; way. to obtai,n, this , required 500 GPM for the intended j i,. �since ,t.hEo, 4! on. Halsey Avenue even�.kfor,' the 1 .6k1­stin&Ais, now,. c,def icient according to ISO regulations, and _could ,, ,.no.t. tie , .ext-.endo-dt.ove r the crest of the h1l.l% C hief E11vobdi,, .explained` thatL Vpt ions were open. to the developer-:',,,. 1)­Connection, , w,• , -tfie W!,, 1 off of Olive Street brought-- into =a.. point 300. to- 400 feet, to: the house on. Lot. 2, btThg*1hg4;in.: ',(fire 4hydtantli, �61 road �;2 A A loop system through ' iv "' the_ �prbpqrtyw "tie& bi e'i in with the Street line. He stated there would ,-have , ,to.l �end;,of.Halsey Avenue to e be� a re4ch lots l Ari'&; 4r` maim , o ­ f , fqi of Avenue could there- Dore be". bo'o'sted`' the 8" maih.'and, pr6V.ide, the required 500 GPM. y Ch ief " -fe1t those two. options were feasible and Iii f El­ hid6di stated.,he reasonabie; Chal-rmah H6rciza'qdestibned the need; for the cul-de-sac. Chief i D t was asking for a -E that - the, lfie6r­ n�g�;� epartmen �,, cul:� , -sac f or. - traf , fic.-, - purpos­e&..�- He*, stated that fire purposes d . 'l-de- at 'ivis ,- provide a proper turning require cu _s. __,in,� -ions ,to it 0 ` ` xadlhis� f ln", i,§I�..c�ase 4 '..'he: [advised that lo ng drive- ways ­,would',be,- furnished, and,,theref ore'.1 the icul-de- sac was not , I.4. Chief Ellwood reason& 1)rot'ectioW.'' s� te�d­it, wou1& f.'iom.,the,, Department tA standpoint., +s-ince'vhen. there, isi -al;-deadend., entering into ,,�, private `roads room is needed `t Comm. Head questi'dned,4hy -this cut -de-.sa6 had', i not been,� provided when Halsey '7stated Avenue had.� developed:. - Chief; 'Ellwood, that the cul- de-sac required in the Ordinance at that ­� -B'6 furi , her`:e�cplained that it had been originally time': .1 M prop:os'ed� that 'Ha1sey extend .through lo either Olive or this 'was% the f1rst ,.pidoasal the City had seen t.hatt did snot carry -this street through., m `H&ad, at6&be f elt _.the� size.-of, the -lowas ts was insignif i- ,� st C6m - y dant,, -4incet'the applicant -was only talking about three houses wh1dh could -,that eas'il-y be, serviced: with -,..driveways. Mr. Boehlje - e " ','the . °cul_'d e-.sat.,; :was b eing ��xequi red riot to sp I eci- p 1i dd ficilly these three lots; but.. to provide a turnaround. rHargis,- that -a, turnaroun&ds, a standard require- ment,: "but :the` 6 it JS�predi.cated otiq,,,a a fire truck room.to-turn'around.. Comm. Wright questioned if it would be tequkred�­f or ��the adjoining, at, the end, of Halsey Avenue. Mr.� Hargis, it wou be desirable in` 'case of an emergency. Mr' J&ias,� the, Commission it,,was:,not possible to provide a, Z "! 7.. I public :street off of Olive Street. because of the width in- - volved, an&also because a storm drain easement could not be Petaluma' City Planning Commission: - .Minutes,. February 18 1976 _ :6tainedthr,ough ping property. ,;He went on to :day -he•would perm : t „the : City =.,to through'h a p'roperty:•with ,the water main, but: - .providing it himself' would be`,Ieconom 'dally unfeasible, since he had received an es.timat'e �of6'_$10�' 000 'to ;$12;;000.' Mr:.. Jonas stated that - a check with, the residents on. Halsey Avenue ifidi- dated they ; had ' problems with, people ,turning around at the end. :,of: the street.; - but .had: complained aboiut' inadequate �w�ter °prey- sure:° aCfiief= •.Ellwood: explained :that •s'ince;;'thik closest fire' hydr ant is 800 feet siaay,, -:a `booster pump " =1's utilized' to obt adequate pres'sure.; Mr..JohAs, stated.° `that'!,he 'had been ,told Halse' ,Averidel would be' upgraded -in the future to provide ade quate water ;pressure -, and. he was proposing that the City allow him 't;o build this house on 'Lot .1 and =wait until Hal'seY Avenue was upgraded.: He �saated if- - put in ' d `taster mein; -it would. bbenefit:'.the people on = Halsey' Avenue ,a.d' Vduld also be less expensive for the City to '.go -through undevdloped - ,land rather than- improve the Halsey Avenue. system. ''Mr. Jonas informed the Commission_ that .he''!had'. a 'cistern •on,1 t .11;that held 22,000 `gallons of ,wate_r, whch':would -pr- ovi'de adequate pros sure to meet IS'O requirements. Mr. ,Jonas ,.:furnished, members �of -the' Commission plans for the proposed, hammerhead type _of cul -de -sac., , s,tatin that it would provide ,,proper -turning .radius 'for If -1re . trucks and' automobiles. He also stated he found the' standard type', of; - cul-ds -sae aes- thetically unpleaeih&. • :Chairman- Sorciza 'asked ­Chief gllWo'6d if this satisfactor Chief; "JE11w ®od'rat °aced that the City has -accepted the 4hammer-head- type •.."sign when. feasible, and; the cul -de -sacs :in-this,= case was not. s11: that. - necessary because; of the .'length of the dr;gewa "ye. "., went on to. ®ay that. the , ISO requ xementa state. -; youl can .use , a. cistern if. other water is, 'not: available:; .however, for.• ;each; ;time' -they are allowed to be used.,: deficiency ,points are 'given = A discussion followed on the 'possib l_ity. - of the City connecting the tw.o water 'mains .'' Mr -. ;Hargis vadu sad .that, 41-though 1 -t: 'was feasible.And would -vr.ovide additional benefits ­to the people on Halsey. Avenue, .he could -not- .speak Ioi >the- City +as :.tb whether they would' wish, �to pay ,to 'run 'this' water main :through. He also advised that if 1the, development :occurred In ,small lots, you would normally see :the, water ;andE , ; lines goirig­�through the develo.ment p :, Mr-. 'Har,gis -said ?ghat : proposed development wa® really no , different�-tfian ,any- ,other' except' the..appaicant' was tot creating,;publi'c street "s in which' the public iriproveinents ~w be included' as -would :be' -. the normal arrangement "for 1a , subdi l Sion. , Mn, =Jonas - stated: he .took ~. issue' -�to being called a normal .subdivision,, since development he Sias proposing was at a much smaller scale. ,and, the cost' would be prohibitive since, it would ;amount to $3Q, QOO, ,for ,both water ' and. _sewer..mains,.. .I t.. was_. clarified that, although building permits could be issued, occupancy of .the homes `:wouldqnot beq'alllowed ithe. 1fi-re' flow requirements , had .been'..metcr. Mrs: 'Jones' re ter'ated -that -"he would "Tebtua "'18 "197 Tetalum 6 Cft­y': =Planriing ConuiilssI6 A 9 r rovi e -a 6-"- , fire ,prot6c)tIon';1 by, •the cistern An d �' d - f " e.quat: ' ... 1: 1 er AwAitliftg �fhe­ :tyw -o .put - Irv, m ed'he-,1 'lt"� app an had '.two t 'IT46oil,� lic ' t �,-.,_provemen -si, e . feasible P on o o low'.: 'Mr,.:.Jon s tended �thatthe addir 4o Itiona:l,price of .,the .wa'te'r main would Abe .:a- 66 ' - and n. ,since X11- vodla, also benefit 26 ; other lfhomea, he did not :f eel ;.that -hi­- Id - SO - spongilile, , ;jfor� r ,entir ,. Comm. Bond re- s �h 'he� e. cost ou .'ire t 4 - pl , - the-a _f -: i'ed',thdt­� p,�I'icaht -was in, e - asking the -City to im .,Comm i"��Hea'd" lhe applicant felt he shoul!&-h6t,::�have.t6 <subs idizd!the: ' other , 26. homes . He went on to say , that.•�the ;extension : of " e wa .main' by .the City would save The;:-cost �61 upgrading for ithe .lo,.ther'.,4 and that when pilvilic offici 1 , �.conigi der�.t, - ,rights, !.the people ! - - f �Comm.. - d,contended it rare ir� rights ' ^. ,Bon v Y ..arid�the eonsi- d 'erat on this = e�iening', was .;Afh' to1, ece of property only': Comm, '­Head 'Anteriupt6d -at which ,time he was ruled to be -out, of de r .. s as " adke:d 'for an;evdluatlon;•�Of', hammerhead turn- Mr vHarg 1 Iw around xersus. is : „standard :cul -de - sac . ."He replied that it was ea's'ier fto keep,�`4'going :'in:'a­.z`ircle, 'An'a standard cul• -rde-sac, . ptffl u p ..and buck up din - VI:the hammerhea:d situation 'd thAt .. hammerhead m rg:1's P '.�ex�'Ial-ne method , .cul-"46"sacs had always been :st:,teets4:. Comm E lead'' .stated the street in ” � On •was .,pfivate, and ore quesitioned -the hammer st A I ..ti ead.-%tiltnAf'bijhd ixot`-* `.utA d. - 11061 t"Wc:. iHargis :.replied that _:the <r-,&r- rwodld'_ : T or a pu 'd e'dication of the cul- rather 11de- -'sac �:ra�- 'ithan'..acc eptanc e 'of . the hammerhead ,method. Upon ' Ing he a lso flled - the . gravity be i uestj�, one t o 'I s­rdcommended 'and,pre:f erred, there is :`m 6f'-isewer � ng F i e :nothing wrong� �-s6tqer,, necessary. .7, Vi' th Comm t fbc -of ..the stipulation not -,. -.--Waters- -t he ef ioned :a he ..qqes s '2. and .•1.1 that an open .,space aelfective, bu .the C#y, Council would have to c ation , icomm. Wright_stated:he. - :f dit .the ..cost of •devdlopment of the lots as' zs , ds,,�a burden, arid.,161t.rthat the :sewer .pumps 1� R1 Ahou " ia -' - ;t cull�de­-sac - and - f Ire f low bUt i. - fe lt tthat ,-_ ::the' direm�n't to recommend to .r W 'he' C' Uenyl.t , Ped1`,.of Mr. as set f orth in ­ j It I ';,th e - except-T _t e , staff-�z, epoxf-�Iwlth ,- oW' hat,l.'Coridition #2 should be • imi e tioil Bond. udl - hat'd. -Ahe �.mo. -AYES A ;NOES :1 I'ABSENT 2 ' ..57. Peta'luma.City Planning Commission Minutes,. February .18,, 1976 -6- ARNOLD MAIER, -'EIQ: Mr.,, Bo.ehlje explained the,appl,carit�s request for modification EVALUATIONJREQUEST: FOR to the Subd'iyision Ordinance I to'. allow: for a 9;407 sq. ft. lot 'MODIFICATION TO,THE �.where.a,miriimum..10,000 9q;.' lot is requiied,sand also to _- PROVISIONS .OE THE allow for, a 70 -foot wide lot where a mirimuin of 75 feet is re- SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE: ,quired. Mr.; M& er addressed the Commission statin he was not asking, for. anything more, than.wliat existed'on neighboring lots:. He also 'stated that the: "required setback would not accommodate the pe existing.trees unles's he cut them down, and therefore'a variance } would also be necessary. Comm. Wright I questioned why the:.area was zoned"k -1- 10,000, ye > there were „so substandard.'Jo'ts'..:Mr: Boehlje replied that when the area was zoned in. 1965 it was approved'for 6,000 sq. ft. lots' "the jiisti.fication that the sl'ope: so steep. The area was biiefly.discussed,,af,ter which Comm. Bond moved to direct the Planning Director'to prepare and post a Negative Declaration for the project. The motion was seconded by Comm. Wright. AYES 5 NOES 0 - , ABSENT, : 2 Comm.,- Bond•asked for.,a.clarification.,of why a variance might be needed. Mr. Boehlje.,.replied that in,.th s case 'a possible t req�ii to With. t i ar'd're require- menta for an 8footsideardwith a1 20foo "tsideard agg "regate Y y !' He further advised. that to avoid cutting downioak trees, the applicant wished to move the;`.structure •,,5 or 16 :feet from, one ... sid 'Mr. :B:oehl a stated . that :normally the Planning, staf f ,yard. would' not recommend approval :'of, variances; on -..properties which r have been granted a.modif1cation for reduced.aot sizes or 4 dimensions, but ''in this particular " case he .feit the Commission M ight wish, to consider a variance.' 'He informed the Commission • he was not aware that :a variance would.be:needed . to save the oak trees when- " the, staff`report was wrif ten, ''and therefore suggested that,the condition,.. that" all, ;normal•' setback and yard require- ments:•,must'be strictly adhered to:.' should not be part of the recommendation to the*City Council. Comm. Bond ; _ a s k e d if spec ,f ic. findings. had' to be made. Mr. Boehle read the findings' ''as stated.. in 'the last paragraph of the staff'report. Commi Bond` moved.to.recommend' the City Council that they permit the modification to,the. :provisions of the Subdivision. Ordinance in •accordance with, ;the findings as stated. The motion was ''seconded by' Comm. Waters. -. ... ., - .. ... ,i. AYES 5 NO 0 ABSENT 2 , STOR -IT MINI = WAREHOUSE. The staff report for the proposed 'mini warehouse :project to be - EIQ EVALUATION AND; located at,1020 Lakeville Highway was briefly reviewed. Chair- SITE' DESIGN REVIEW': man Horciz'a showed. of the -Commission reVis'ed plans for parking and landscaping- as determined at, the time of the Arch- tectural and Site Design Review Committee meeting•. -6- alp ql. ai,,a d:-4,. I e 91 6 r Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, February 18; 19'76 V 1, 'C W ro and uestioned 2i � �ffthe access to the at ers st he ated • was.c oncerned about: �p p 'y , q f a. . tra' is hazard might e� result. ­'Mr. Boehii.e replied that it is a1 problem site and the City,has tried ; to encourage. uses with; limited traffic volume. u He felt the proposed. use would fall:-into, that category. Chair- -man �Horciza',stated that the arrangement•:of the access had been designed in such away. as,..to create a minimum of traffic haz- a' ards.' since the access from ,Lakeville Street was via a 40 -foot wide easement (:over the adjacent parcel tolthe left, parallel to Lakeville :'Street d. Comm:. %Wright tmoved `.to direct .the `Planning' Director to prepare and'p'osttia Negative Declaraton' for 'the•.pr.oject. The motion was seconded by. - AYES' - 5 NOES 0- ABSENT 2 Comm. °Wright atated he was : on - the "Architectural and Site Design , aReview'•Committee and the applicant 'had been. agreeable to the °' changes proposed.'' '-He'als`o advised that•.- feet of fill would be required fo.r the urea. Comm., Waters moved for approval of project, subject to the conditions of approval of the Architectural and Site Design Review Committee. The motion was seconded by Comm. Bond. AYES, 5 140ES 0 ABSENT 2 SCHE Mr_. , Boehl e b�iefl Y reviewed the re q uest,. by Jonathan. Ea;rly for a USE P PERMITU2'76. Use a2� licati to .allow the installation: of s interior;,i!iaterals, replacement of window glass and :weatl5er seal;'.' minor wiring repairs,' door window mechanism .repairs,..radia.: installat 'ons, in an existing build: ng located: 4 Peta1um4i.Tlvd;.: North. He ithat the existing­ . builld'ing •received prior site design approval, but the proj ect way.a.con.ditional'use in a C -H area.. The Commission was advised that an• letter had been received regarding this project from: 'Ignacio, Curie,, in which he alleged the applicant had been doing', 6. work,: tune -ups and paint jobs at this site in the ; Past' , and , he• wished it to be brought to the attention of the Commission_. Gomm.'; Bond questioned. if the use was presently in .operation. Mi�.' Early informed the. Commi that he had never ;done =paint " work''. or' tune -ups .ai ' this location, and was surprised that the:Letter;,had been written. Mr. Boehlje further explained that tttie'.bus ness wa' ' in': operation, and" apparently there had been communication .gap between the applicant and Mr. Amaral as to what was required. Comm.. Head• asked if the applicant had a busin'ess�liceri'se . Mr:` Early•' "explained "that he could not be issued one•unt'il the .: Use .Permit had -'been approved. He further advised that • t-he had him he only needed -7- 'Petaluma City Planning Commission, February 18,. 1976 a business license„ and' later he had received •a letter from the City stating ;that a_,Use Permit,and:E,.:I.Q,.:evaluation were neces- sary after he had °alr -eady taken out his lease and.was in business. The "pubic hearing was opened No comments. were offered from the audience and the.public Bearing was closed. Comm. Bond, referred' to the: recommendationto store all cars inside and asked if that also•'ap.plied tothose °awaiting repairs. Mr. Boehlje replied that that"was a normal requirement, since the concern was primarily that partly torn apart cars were not left outside, , and -was -•also intended for' the applicant's pro- tection . .from vandals.• Mr. ;Early 'said that condition would not pose a problem since the cars he was working on were usually pretty valuab a and therefore kept inside .'He ; further advised he ,had six ' " spaces for vehicles and" did not plan to keep any cars outside. Comm. Head .questioned if, this was a;normal Procedure for all businesses,, since he felt it might restrict the applicant in performing iminor adj;pd'tments, such as :changing. P y minutes. Mr. radiator "ca s that would,onl take 10 to 15 mn Boehlje informed him he felt ,the,.,applic,ant could exercise judgment and would normally carry out the repairs within the building. Comm.. Bond ;moved 'to approve the: Use Permit subject to the recom- mended conditions of 'approval included in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Comm. Wright. • AYES 5 NOES '0 ABSENT 2 RONALD. HARDY/ ;MARTIN Mr;. Boehlj e briefly explained, the project ,for a commercial GAVRILOFF'- EIQ complex, including automobile repair, to be located at '821 EVAIUATIQN/USE;PERMIT' Petaluma B1vd...North. He then explained the changes recommended U1 -7'6 /SITE DESIGN by the Architectural and Site Design Review 'Committee. REVIEW: Comm., 'Bond .questioned what. would happen in,t.he areas to the rear of the building. Along discussion :followed;,, during which it 'was clarified that the rear portion.would be :clear of weeds and have a dust free surface. -Mr. Boehlje also clarified that-if a specific use was :intended in the future it would hav to be reviewed.b.y the Architectural and Site Design Review Committee.. If the,use was other than•as stated, °it would have .. to go through the normal Use Permit process. Mr- .. clari- fied that only those uses as stated were now proposed for the building and, he realized that anything of a different nature would require an additional application., Comm. Head questioned if'the condition o store all vehicles being worked on' inside should not apply °'to this application. Mr. < Boehlj�e replied that this requirement.,had been omitted, but should be required as part of the Use.Permit. Mr. Hardy stated this condition-would pose: no problem.. , Petaluma City Planning Commission,.Minutes•, February•18,. 1976 , The public hearing,for the evaluation.gf the E.I.Q. was opened. �I �.� I. a'll " "" �Nb comments;, -were offered and the public ,hearing was closed. TO ZONING ORDINANCE t • NO. 1072 N.C.S.: Comm. Wright moved to direct the Planning Director to prepare andlp.ost.:a Negative. Declaration for -the.project. The motion was � •seconded. , by Comm.. Waters .. . 1 AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 The public Bearing to consider the Use Permit was opened. No a il ,comments we reoffered and.the hearing was closed. " public .C omm.. Head moved to ., +approve the Use Per -lub,j ect to Exhibit ne of " site,desi n review c'onditi "o approval, with the ., '.a °work shall' be performed inside the that buildin ,,, �and� any cars on on w hich,work,;.is ,to.be done shall be g • „ stored inside. The motion was�second'ed`by Comm. Wright. ment,for carnivals or circus since, lot plans were needed to P ® AYES . 5. "NOES 0 ABSENT 2' .t ,Comm. °,.Wri h't questioned if the.. proposed ;storage area for boats s . - or cars was; intended to -be, placed_ .at the rear of the building or in the 'parking area portion. Mr. Hardy replied that this ',,' storage - 'would be enclosed in an :area - inside the building to the rear: appro the site design, subject to Exhibit " cond tro of approval as"'recommended by the Amm Bondemov.ed e s' Arch tectura�l . and Zite Design Rev ew'.Committee. Comm. Waters - seconded t he; "motion.. .. AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 EOilAND' Q Mr. Boe•stated he` wished to,brief;ly review the proposed ANNUAL ` amendm ents... to the Zoning 'Ordinance individually. Comm. Head TO ZONING ORDINANCE questioned why. the Commission had to review all the amendments, NO. 1072 N.C.S.: since he felt that' since . the City Council also had" to: approve them, they should be passed,on to' them make the ..determination.o , Chairman.FHorciza stated' felt the Commission was:`;in: agreement to review all of the items. Items #1 through #16 were briefly reviewed. Comm. Wright ques- #11 also pertained to-storage sheds:. Mr. Boehlie a il ti d'ithatem t•- storage sheds would = also have' ^ to be 10 f e'er ;from ' the house:` Comm. '.Head stated he'felt this would pose a hardship. In_.cofijunct' on with' Item 412, Mr., Boehlje clarified that a ., marina would require a'Use Permit. He then explained the pro- eeduYes for; granting a business lic'e'nse and stated that the reason- for '.the change in Item 414• - was to • provide proper enforce- ment,for carnivals or circus since, lot plans were needed to P ® determe traffic problems. Comm. Head stated he felt this was .t too much'- - authorit on the.Plannng Director. Mr. Boehlje s . - 'repli'e'd that other staff , agencies would ' also have to review the `business license. ',,' -9- Petaluma City Planning Commission'-�Minu' es,.i'February 18 ;.1976` " ; • ° . : public f ,the: evaluat -ion of -the E:.I.Q:. was opened. No.•commen s were .offered.•:from�..t'he .audiencejand, °the public hearing was closed. 'Comm.> Wright i"moved• to .direct ;the Planning Director to prepare, and post .a Negative =Declaration .for�,;the.modif cations to. the; Zoning :Ordinance. The motion .was seconded by Comm.. Bond. AYES 5 NOES`. 0 ,ABSENT 2 Comm_. Wright',stated',,that " he'felt :stor.age,°t%Ype,`buildings were appropriate and did not feel that the 10400t restriction should ;apply. Discussion followed regarding the,r..ewording..of Condition `No._ 11. Mr: Boehlj °e.'.advised "No structure `shall be .detached 'from the-main s for purpose of:..avoiding yard re quirements." . Comm. Wright also objected to Item #15 which would Aiminish the size of the driveways from 20 feet to 16 feet. Comm.'Head, stated he was in favor of the change, since,in the,past the Commission.'had been concerned-. about lowering 'housing -costs,..and this ;extra. 4' feet of concrete ,did . add to the cost of the. house. The public:hearing ; .the- Zoning'Ordinance amendments was opened.. No comments were offered from the audience and the public.hearing was closed.: Comm. ° Bon& m ove d , to reco to the City' Council the adoption. of. Items -61 through 114 and.. Item. 4 16,, with he 'stated modifi cation for Item 411 relating:,to"detached- accessory buildings. The motion was seconded by Comm. Wright. AYES 4 NOES 1 ABSENT 2 Comm. 'Head. explained- his '!No" vote by stating that, he' had not, had a chance fo . study they proposed' 'modifications to make. a; good 'Con'secutive vote-on it "Chairman Horciza.• stated he tad .some ,r.eser- vations regarding the driveway widths, but had voted in the .affirmative with the feeling that the matter might,be-more appropriately dealt with in "the future. iOTH'ER BUSINESS': Mrs Boeh1je' advised the 'Commi sign that the memo r ;egarding' "Review of Strategic E. D•. P .. -P,ol cies" was a, summary' of those areas, which the City Council determined during ;:Study Session Should be given,, special attent- ion,, 'and dealt with major policie's o:f •the .E.'D;.P., ;The Commission. was informed, that it would be neceaaary to hold puhlic� :hearings ..on, whatever they chose to decide new policies for a. five -year plan.: They were also ;in formed they would hav:e;to decide „ if;they.wanted citizen input and 'wished. to "appoint .citizen_ committees: '.Mr. .Bo.ehlje stated the Commission. it self could. divide into',commit,tees and ,appoint, e'itizens, abut he! drd feel. .there were :as many issues at this time as dur = ing ; the nit -.al adoption of the •ED.P. and 'therefore not as many subcommittees would be necessary. -10- li I Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, February 18, 19.76 I. Comm. Waters stated that he,,felt,that,as much public input as 0,' possible should be•brough't into. the policies for the new five - year ,M.r. Boehlje informed the Commission that a decision . shoud be made as to kind of.commttees were required so that an advertisement for members could be placed in the paper. The Commission determined to discuss the new five -year plan at the next meeting on March 2, 1976. ADJOURNMENT: There ,being no further business., the meeting was adjourned at u 11:15. p.m. Vest: Chairman , 0 -11-