Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/16/1976A G E N D A. PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1976 Tea GULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. ITY'COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA - Planning 'on °encourages applicants or` their representatives to be available at the answer questions,.so that no agenda items need be deferred to a:later date due to a lack of pertinent information. ' PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG `ROLL CALL:, , Comm. Bond. Head Hilligoss Iiorciza Popp Waters W it ght STAFF: Dennis Boehlje;, Planning Director, APPROVAL OF'•MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE SONOMA COUNTY REFERRAL:. Reichardt Duck Farm Use Permit request to allow' construction of"an addition of six new duck buildings on the property located at 3770 Middle Two Rock Road in a County Exclusive Agriculture " y District. PETALUMA PROPERTIES, INC. Variance application Petaluma Properties, Inc. VARIANCE V2 -76: to allow a reduction in rear yard from 10 feet 1 trr to 5 feet for `the "Petaluma Inn Motel structure addition located at 200'South McDowell Blvd. VALITA LITTLE - Variance application byValita Little to allow VARIANCE V3 -76: front lot setbacks - of,2'2 feet where 25 is re- quired and rear lot setbacks of 17 feet where 20 feet is required;on two lots of the proposed Tamar Subdivision to be located at Tamar Drive between.C'rinella Drive and the proposed ex -. tension of Park Lane. PETALUMA BOY'S CLUB - E.I.Q. EVALUATION/ USE PERMIT U4 -76 /SITE DESIGN REVIEW.:' e Public Hearing to evaluate thib Envir..onmental Impact Questionnaire and consider an application for a Use' Permit Subm "itted by the Petaluma Boys' Club to allow the, expansion of their existing facil'itie's to in.cIfide outdoor basketball courts, volleyball courts,, and a tennis court with a practice board to :be located at 400 -406 and 426 8th Street in an R -1-6,500 Single- family Residential District, and site design review for the project. ADJOURNMENT - 1` M I N U T E S O ETALUMA. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 'REGULAR "�MEETING CITY COUNCIL'CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PRESENT: Comm. Bond *, Head, Hilligoss, Horciza, Popp, Waters *'Arrived at 7:40 p.m. ABSENT Comm. Wright MARCH 16, 7:30 R.M.. PETALUMA, 1976 CALIFORNIA STAFF: Dennis Boehlje, Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The - minutes of March 2nd and March:9th,. 1976, were approved as submitted.. • b SONOMA COUNTY Reichardt Duck Farm - Mr. Boehlje briefly explained the request REFERRALS: for, a•Use Permit to allow:construction , of an additional six duck buildings, on property located at 3'77,0,Midd.le Two Rock Road in a county Exclusive Agriculture District_. Comm. Popp moved to direct the - Planning Director to forward a letter to the Sonoma, County Board of Zoning Admustments indicat- ing,no opposition to the requested Use Permit. The motion was seconded by Comm. Hilligoss.. AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 ABSTAINED 1 Comm. abstained because-he arrived after consideration of the project had begun. , ;PETALUMAA PROPERTIES, Mr Boehlje briefly - reviewed the request by Petaluma Properties, INC. - VARIANCE V2 - 76: Inc for a variance to allow a reduction in rear yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet for the proposed addition to the existing Petaluma Inn Motel located at 200 South McDowell Blvd. Chairman- Horciza questioned if the :lack of space for the parking and room size hadn't been known at the time the applicant applied for site design review. Mr. VictorDeCarli, representing-Peta- luma Properties, Inc., informed the Commission that.the architect had assumed that 172 -foot rooms would be adequate., and further investigation had revealed that a minimum of 18% feet is nieces- "sary, He a s,o stated that more -room was being requested for the back-,out.width for the perpendicular parking as a safety factor. Mr. DeCarli clarified that the rooms in the - existing portion of the motel were 24 feet deep. Comm. Popp stated he felt that the requested reduction in rear yard could tend to reduce van- dalism.' 'Mr,. DeCarli agreed, that it .would be safer and the area could .be,, fenced, off . He also: clarified that the trade off of Land with the State for the freeway had affected the project, as it had..no ; -been known exactly how much land the State would need. A� Petaluma. City Planning Commission Minutes, March 16, 1976 Comm.. Hilligoss moved to grant the'�variance i -n- accordance with the findings as indicated in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Comm. Head. AYES 6 NOES 0 ` I' VALITA LITTLE VARIANCE X13 -76,: Mr. Boehlje briefly explained the request by Valita Little for a variance in front yard.fr.om 25 feet to 22 feet and a reduction in rear yard from 20 feet to- 17 :feet on Lots P ;arid #13 of :t.h proposed Tamar Subdivision. Comm. .Popp questioned the'square footage'of the twot lots. Mr. Dave Glendenning, Project Engineer-from. Murray- McCormick, in- formed the - Commission that Lot #7 would be 6,820 square feet and Lot #13 would be 8,549 square feet. Chairman Horciza .que.st-ioned why the problem had not been realized when* the subdivision had been designed Mrs. Lucy Webb and Mr. Boehlje clarified that the Tentative Map had already been approved for the subdivision and the problem had not become known until it was discovered that more.'room was needed' for the public. improve- .. ment's when the public improvement plans-were submitted. Mr. Boehlje stated that the variance- would have no effect on the public improvement standards. ' ''Comm. Waters q.u'est oned. what effect the difference in - rear yard setback would have. Mr.,Boehlje replied that there would be no difference in the•improvementa to the property, since the houses were set at an angle and would•only be 17 feet from the rear property line at one single point instead of the required 20 feet. Mr. Boehlje stated ;that. Lot #7 backs onto�Caulfield Lane and would therefore 'not 'pose ,a problem to ,any ne ighboring lots and -Lot 413 would still have a large rear yard because of its overall size. C Comm Waters moved to grant the variance in accordance with.the findings as indicated -in 'the staff report. The motion was seconded by= Comm. Bond,;- AYES 6 NOES' �O ABSENT: • : 1 Comm Head moved for a recess at 7:55 p.,m. bef;ore consideration of the next item on the agenda. The motion ded'for lack of a second. PETIALUMA ; BOYS I1 CLUB` - Mr-'. Boehlje expl'airied the ,proposed expansion ,of' the Boys' Club E.L.Q. EVALUATION/ *for the••purpos'e•.iof including a tennis count 'and practice board, USE PERMIT U4 =76/ basketball courts <, and a Volleyball 'court adjacent to the exist- r SITE DESIGN REVIEW;; rig facilities..at 8th and '' T "Streets: - He advised that neighbors had voiced complaints with regard to the traffic and noise -2- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, March 16, 1976 factors and the Commission would ha ve to decide what is best for the ldreventually becomeopark ested on the block and the area cou land. Mr;.; Boehlje .then read letters in opposition to the proposed expansi'on.,whilch had been submitted by Stanley Johnson and Mr. & Mrs Joseph Ferna. Comm.. Waters' questioned who presently owned the property under consideration, Mr, Ernest' Yates'of the Boys' Club replied that the, back' °parcel presently belongs.to the'Boy's Club and the other portion would be obtained by "a, ,grant,.proposa.1, to which the present owner had agreed.. The parking was questioned, and Mr. Yates nf'ormed the Commission that 'the first basketball court and half of the second one could b'e utilized for parking and would accommodate 20 parking spaces. -He'- further advised that the Boys' Club was considering a permanent parking area 49' x 100' for furt , her,ut,ili'zation of the basketball courts. 4 Mr.' Y'ate.s clarified that the' outside facilities, including the tennis courts, would definitely be shut down and lights turned off at 9:,00'p.m., and that,there would not be too many practices late in the evening. Comm:..Wat;ers asked the applicant how the expansion would affect the five remaining residences. Mr. Yates replied that l a petition had been obtained, from local residents, and three "of th'e five adjacent residents had signed the petition favoring the expansion while the other two had been noncommittal. He advisea that the Boys' C1'ub "had owned the back parcel for approximately ten years. Mr.. Boehlje informed the Commission ; that the Architectural & Site Design'Review'Committee had recommended some changes, including .a 20 -foot high fence around the tennis courts with redwood slats in the fence, I He s,tated.that although the applicant had - agreed to this did not feel.th'at the redwood slats should extend more than 6 -8 feet high. Chairman Horciza replied that Comm "IWr ght had made the suggestion for the 20 -foot high fence and" slats, but did not intend.for the slats to reach the entire 2.0 -foot, 'height. He added that the slats and planting of ivy had been 'suggested . since the hedgelpr6posed would grow too slowly. fo " J P al Im act, . Mr Boehl explained to the audieecenthatnthetfirst pub lic hearing would be _in relation to th p Ques ti onnaire' -and 'to any possible adverse effect on the ''environment, and the second public hearing would be to consider the Use Permit. The Public Hearing to evaluate the Environmental Impact. Ques- tionnare was then opened. , The hours of operation and the availability of the facilities were questioned. Mr. Yates verified that the facilities would be open from 3!00 p..m to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays.and from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays,and would.be locked at all other times. -3= Petaluma City Planning. Commission Ain.utes, March 16, 1976 Mr. Stanley Johnson ; stated, that he had 'been informed• there. were ba'sketbal'l courts' available, at the elementary schools and ques- tioned they ;could not be, utilized rather than spend money for 'additional 'facilities.. Comm. 'Hilligoss stated 'she 'believed that all'the available basketball courts ifi, town were in use. Mr: Ples Crews of the Boys' Club informed the 'Commission that they presently had. 57 basketba-ll.teams and it would not be ,possible to spread these 'teams out at different `locations:,_ ,since that It hiring an additional six staff members which they could 6t afford. He' explained, that the games 'had' to. be 'planned for the afternoons and evenings to allow the coaches time to travel from their jobs. Mr. Crews also stated that any courts that could `possi bly 'be utilized' would ' have to be either lighted or ndoor°,s . be'cause.' of the necessity to hold the games in the eve- ning... Mrs. Justice` stated that,';, alt- iough "she 'realized. the need for the facilities,;, there was .no way to control the noise from cars and young people or the amount of'garbage that was discarded. She felt the facilities were 'impractical for' 'the . residential area and posed a problem for driveways. who could not park n Iront of their own. homes. Comm. Head suggested contact . in:g, the Boys': Club 'with r- -egard to th.e rulibish since he f elt the problem be so 'C lved by "the boys themselves; policing the area: sit omm. 'Popp stated he felt the expansion would help the parking ' uat'ion, wince it would' alleviate the traffic confusion at 8th "And `" 'G" : Street's He went on to say that 'the park' had been .there for quite some time, and was going•to,,s:tay there, and therefore the °pr- opert,y should' probably- be ,put to ;public use as it becomes avai able. Mr. Ple's 'Crews agreed. that there' presently .was 'a problem with parking, but stated he felt the..proje`ct would alleviate the situation. He also stated. that th'e landscaping would add to the visual appearance of :.'the site, Mr. Crews stated that he did not 'feel the expansion would : create more traffic generated noises,, since the program was set up' only` t'o the "8th !grade level and those boys would have their - parents driving them rather than having young drivers coming to the site;. Mr'. Crews" was asked how high the fence would be and he explained that it would be 18 -20 feet'high' around -the tennis ;court and 10 feet"high along the total'; property. Mn., Boe'h1j:e clarified that . for r'ecreat onal pixrposes as part of the site des=ign review the Planning Commission can approve a 'fence higher than 6 feet on the property line'. The applicants were' asked 'if ,the parking , definitely be provided in the front area and what hours the public would be utilizing the area. Mr. Crews and, Mr. Yates verified that there. .would be ,20 parking spaces and that the public: would only .use. t'h'e,'® :facilities during the same hour& the Boys ! was open during the week and Saturdays, with the facility . closed down entirely on Sundays. -4- Mr: „ stated that the.Use Permit.could be conditioned that the..,area be kept clean of ,litter „and reminded the Commission that they could also control the use by the annual review pro- vision. Comm. Waters stated he.felt =that much of the litter originated from McNear Park and not from the Boys' Club. Comm. Popp',agreed, and stated that a lot of the car problems were also because of the facilities at McNear Park. The traffic situation .from.a safety'aspect was questioned. Mr. Yates suggested that perhaps more stop signs could be installed. He also clarified that he did not expect increased membership or traffic because of the expansion, since all the boys that want to play are now playing. Mr-. Yates stated that the building fa- cility was also handling as much as it possibly could. Chairman Horciza stated that if the traffic or.membership would not in- cr.eas'e he did not anticipate that the litter problem would increase : either... He questioned. whether. the Boys' Club presently policed�the-area, for litter. Mr —Ples Crews replied that the neighbors had never complained and he .wished they had. He.. admitted there was a problem, but felt i had decreased since the market was no longer there. Mr. Crews stated that he did not recognize the litter problem that the neighbors were talking about, since he personally cleaned up the front.of the building every.morning. He also advised that he would have boys policing the area :in the future. Dr. .Larry Saunders, a Board member of the Boys' Club, spoke in favor:.of-,the , b'asketball.program -and the expansion of the Boys' Club. He stated he. did.not feel the noise .problem would be as prevalent,as•the neighbors feared, -since the expansion would be a supervised play area. -5- Petaluma City ,Planning Commission M,inute&, March lf'; 19,7 ' The question.ar.ose by .two members of ; the audience as to how the .Boy's'•Club intended ' to - - keep. up 'the proposed` area when they could not. keep-- up,the present site. Mr.. Yates replied that the problem in the past has been that of economics,..isince there was enough money for the staff but not enough for items such as windows and rugs. He added that'foundatio'n. grants had recently become available for the courts.- Comm. Head reminded the audience that the.-Boys" Club ,is mot-a publicly endowed situation and must rely ..on the 'cooperation of the residents and the pride of the com- mun ty in the form of co0tributions to insure that it does not become ,run- down. Mr. David Lob4ell informed the Commission that lady adjacent to the Boys' Club had changed her mind about signing the petition, :. and another ,adj'acent resident. who signed had not been the owner of..-the property and he th.ought,;the owner had forwarded a letter in opposi;tion,.. He added that ,h'e ,felt the tennis courts should - not be located so close to the homes. A; discussion followed with regard to the location of the tennis court and the adjacent residents. Mr: „ stated that the.Use Permit.could be conditioned that the..,area be kept clean of ,litter „and reminded the Commission that they could also control the use by the annual review pro- vision. Comm. Waters stated he.felt =that much of the litter originated from McNear Park and not from the Boys' Club. Comm. Popp',agreed, and stated that a lot of the car problems were also because of the facilities at McNear Park. The traffic situation .from.a safety'aspect was questioned. Mr. Yates suggested that perhaps more stop signs could be installed. He also clarified that he did not expect increased membership or traffic because of the expansion, since all the boys that want to play are now playing. Mr-. Yates stated that the building fa- cility was also handling as much as it possibly could. Chairman Horciza stated that if the traffic or.membership would not in- cr.eas'e he did not anticipate that the litter problem would increase : either... He questioned. whether. the Boys' Club presently policed�the-area, for litter. Mr —Ples Crews replied that the neighbors had never complained and he .wished they had. He.. admitted there was a problem, but felt i had decreased since the market was no longer there. Mr. Crews stated that he did not recognize the litter problem that the neighbors were talking about, since he personally cleaned up the front.of the building every.morning. He also advised that he would have boys policing the area :in the future. Dr. .Larry Saunders, a Board member of the Boys' Club, spoke in favor:.of-,the , b'asketball.program -and the expansion of the Boys' Club. He stated he. did.not feel the noise .problem would be as prevalent,as•the neighbors feared, -since the expansion would be a supervised play area. -5- Petaluma City 'Planning Commission Minutes, March:16, 19.76 PP Y ob • • 'Comm. 'Bond :asked the: .a applicants if 'the ob:' ected to the condition being added to, the Use Permi"t, . that the prof ect area be kept clear 'of litter.. Mr.. Crews and Mr..Yates replied they had no objection whatsoever.. A, resident asked' what the :expansion would do to the market value of' the five remaining homes-. Mr., Boehlje repled. "that there is virtually no way of telling,since although•,some people might not w sh'to buy pr-op'erty.adjacen,t to - recreational facilities, others may -:feel just the..•opposte... 'Comm. Popp stated "that he felt anything would be better .than - t'he•-market ,an'd. old .house, that had previously been on the property. The Public Hearing was Bien closed. Comm. Head moved to direct. the Planning Director to prepare and post .a Negative Declarati =on for the .pr,oj.ec.t. The motion was seconded by Waters. Comm.,Bond informed the residents present' that when. !the Commission considers an ,Environmental :Impact Questionnaire they,! must take into account adjoining pro - perties;'however, he stated' that there was larger environmental consideration 'in this instance, and that was the 'very positive effect to the.whol-e .community. `He. ° stated that 'he felt the Boys' Club was performing .a very"un �qie . nd needed service in the city. AYES 6 `NOES 0 ABSENT -A recess was called' at 9:10 p.m..'and the meeting resumed at 9 :20 P•m• ,Discussion followed' regarding adding the provision that the prof act area must 'be kept, clear %of litter to the Use Permit conditions of approval.. The Public Hearing to consider the Use Permit was then opened. `Mr. Boehlj a -r-.ead the recommended conditions of approval as stated i the 'sta report with the additions that "or on. the Site itself" ;should be ,added. 'to. Condition #3,; and Condition #4 should be ;added stating that the- subj';ect property 'shall be maintained in a .clean and, orderly. , -manne_r --. ' The applicant stated he was in agreement with these conditions of approval.. No comment's w6ret offered from the audience and the Public Hearing= was closed. Comm. Hilligoss stated ghat although everyone: was .compla about the parking, she felt the problem was caused by McNear Park rather than from the Boys' Club.. She 'therefore suggested taking 'out the boulevard and putting. -in parking. Discussion followed regarding the .feasibility` of the suggestion' because of the narrowness of the streets.. Gomm..- Head suggested making "Y" and •''G" Streets', one -way to add more parking. 'Comm Bond stated he •' felt the suggestion had, merit - and -felt that the Recreation, Music, and Parks Commission should look into the mat-ter. Mr.. Boehlj' °e advised. that any such action ,could be: expensive and would require the approval of the City Council. -6 Petaluma.City'Planning Commission. Minutes, March 16, 1976 Comm Head moved to.gsant the Use Permit subject to conditions of appgoval',•�recomm`ended `by the:.Arch tectural•. & Site Design Review Committee, those included in the-staff-report, and the additional requirements stated. Comm. Popp seconded the motion. AYES ;6 NOES 0 ABSENT .1 Mr:' Boehlje r'ea +d the conditions• of approval as recommended by the Architectural & Site Design�Review, Committee and also the con - dition that the basketball courts would be utilized for parking when possible and parking plans submitted to the Planning Direc- tor -.for approval. Chairman Horciza stated that the applicants had offered to include the parking and install gates at the time of the Architectural & Site Design Review' Committee meeting. Comm. Head stated he felt a condition should be added that parking for the Boys' Club facilities should not be allowed in front of the existing five homes.. Mr. Boehlje replied that that condition had.been included in the Use Permit the Commission had just approved, although it might admittedly be difficult to en force. A Comm Bond moved to approve the site design with the six con - Y ditions of approval as stated -. The mot -ion was seconded by Comm. Hilligoss. ® AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 P OTHER BUSINESS: Chairman Horciza voiced the need to have someone take minutes of the 'EDP Task Force Committee meetings, and discussion followed. Mr. Boehlje stated that the concern was that the committee be only composed of citizens who were expected to go out into the community and solicit information and report back to the com- mittee, and the staff was not to be included in this function. He also advised that funds had not been budgeted for this amount of staff overtime. It was agreed that the Planning Department would have the.minutes prepared from notes furnished by someone attendant at the meetings. Comm. 'Hilligoss stated that Mr. Don Doss wished to be considered for the EDP Task Force Committee. Mr. Boehlje also read the names of the following people who wished to be considered: 'Toga Storti, Harry W. Schloetter, Larry Jonas, Richard Courier, Yvonne Mauz`ey, and Celeste & Gregory Wixom. Comm. Hil'ligoss moved to accept the additional eight members for the EDP Task Force Committee as follows: Pon Doss Tora Storti Harry Schloetter Larry Jonas Richard Courier Celeste Wixom Yvonne Mauzey Gregory Wixom -7- Yf Petaluma City'Planriing Commission Minutes, March 16, 1976 lb The motion was seconded.by,Comm.: Popp an& . all votes were in the affirmative. Comm.'Head•moved that'.the Chairman direct, the _Recor,ding Secretary to prepare a letter of thanks to Dennis.Boehl for the "service he has provided the Planning Commission;, since this was his last meeting.. The .motion .was, seconded by Comm:. Popp and agreed upon r. by those present.. ADJOURNMENT' '-There being no further•bus ne.'ss, the meeting adjourned at 9 -5.0 Chairman Attests