HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/06/1976A G E N D A
0 TALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION'
GULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
APRIL 6, 1976
7.30 P.M.
PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
The Planning Cbmmis'sion. encourages applicants or their representatives to be
available at the`meetings to an=swer q"stions; -- so that no-agenda -items need be
deferred to a_ + later date due a 'lack of pertinent information.
PLEDGE 'ALLEGIANCE -TO -'THE FLAG
ROLL CALL: Comm. Bond Head Hill•igoss Horcza Popp_ Waters
Wright
STAFF: Frank B. Gray, Community Development & Services Coordinator
APPROVAL'OF MINUTES
CORRESPONDENCE
ARNOLD MAIER - Variance application submitted by Maier for property
VARIANCE V4 -76:: located'at 916 and West Street to allow a reduction in
front yard` from'25" feet ,feet; .4 ",reduction in minimum
side yard' from 8-'feet to 6 feet 'and° 7 feet, respectively;
and - a'reduc -tion in aggregate side from 20 feet to
13 feet.
SONOMA COUNTY, 1. Margo.. &_Leonard Jay & Alex & Irene - Application
REFERRALS: for a change in zoning from the existing A -1 -B5 (1.5 -acre
minimum) District to an R -R (Rural Residential) District
for 3.68 acres located on the west side of Berger Lane
and south of Magnolia Avenue in Petaluma to allow a minor
subdivision into four lots.
2. John Grioff
—Application for a change in zoning from the
existing A l= B5 (1.5 -'acre - minimum)'District to an.R -R
(.Rural Residential) - District for 1..5 acres at 110 Jessie
Lane to allow for legalization of an existing duplex.
�3. Ursula H.�& George Liakos - Application for a Use Permit
to allow a commercial boarding stable to be'located at
43O Ely Blvd. North in an A =1 -B ('1.5 -acre minimum)
District.
V1 _
• .�JOURNMENT
•4. Ace T. Marcellus - Consideration of a Parcel Map
'submitted by Ace T. Marcellu_s for a 4 - lot split located
at 986 Bodega Avenue n - and AB5 Districts..
M'IN,UTE :S
'° ;
6ETALUMA "CITY. PLANNING COMMISSION;'' '
. - - APRIL 6, 976
1
L
REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P
CITY COUNCIL . CHAMBERS, CITY HALL `' h �' P LUMA, CALIFORNIA
ETA
PRESENT': Comm Head, H lligoss Horciza, Popp; Waters,, Wright'
ABSENT i Comma 'Bond,
„ STAFF Frank B_. dray Communit Development Services Coordinator
, Assq 'Planner' "
, red E. Tarr, date ,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
'` 976; . -were •' a approved. as submitted. .
_ .;The
minutes of March'1 1
CORRESPONDENCE': l) The Commiss oners" CommissiVonerspamphlets regarding a ''Short
"'were.+ furnished_'
" 4 Course 'for 'Planning I " to 'be held in °San Fran-
" Cisco in •May, and were ° to ,- the Planning Department
by their, next regular meeting if 'Anyone to attend.
2) r The Commissioners ;were 'advised that,' they' had until April 30th
to, fide their Form 716 s, and, that 'the City Clerk would de-
liver, the completed forms, to the ..County ;if they were sub-
m tted.'"to' her office ,befo
re 'that ",date.
., ) r,. Gray requeste
d the' Chai
lose o rman to adjourn the meeting at the
3 c a items to a, special.'meeting on April 12,
a
g
at 7.30,' $ {e m. for oint meeting of the Planning
19,7 6
P a J'
Commission, Community ,Development Commission, and the Project
'Area Committee the recital zat-ion plan for the
central business 'district of " 'the "city.
4) Mr., "Gray r'ea'd' a letter' of apprec`atio 'di'rected to Dennis
B'oehlje'; former - Planning Director, which had been prepared-by.
the Recording'Secretary , at the request of the Commission.
S) ao�om "County Referral Mr. Gray'brefly explained that
`had been `taken by the Son6ma` Planning Commis-
s'on on Apri1 1,' 4976'; to rezone' a 30 -acre parcel at 525
Sonoma ;:Mounta'in Road from 'an A =2 ','District° to an A -I=B6
District,, 'arid adv;sed,`�that`• the• ;propgsed rezoning conformed to
the Cfy's plans' for. 'that area.
Comm, Waters; the,:exact location of the property
being discussed and whether or not it, was in the City's
�plyanning area Mr Gray replied that; the City does not yet
have `an adopted aphere's of inf,l"uence', and therefore reviews
a ? �xP l that `the 'ap the General Plan area. He further
l' which are i
yL P scant in s ,''rege is the Sonoma. g `
l 11 thi cas
fount Board of Su erv,isors,, wh o had uested the rezonin
,.
Co
10 to 'preclude any further sub-
dvision
" Coffin." Vateers' felt' that daisy comme
nts to the County from the
"' "'Commission should-be deferred until more specific information
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, April 6,, 19
' was known since t general area 'contained narrow roads and
a 20% grade,.and was possibly in :a watershed ; area;. Comm. Head
stated the property owner should have .a choice in the matter
and questioned how the owner of the property felt. ' : Comm .,
Popp
should 'ounty:' Mi. Gray
Commission that clarification_ of - the site and existing
conditions would be obtained the County'; and tle° staff
would attempt to provide aerial photos. in the future
ARNOLD MAIER,- Mr. Gray briefly submitte by
the variancelrequesttreet
'explained
to'
VARIANCE V4 =7:6° Arnold Maier for p roperty located at''920'West S allow a
.
' reduction ' in front yard from 25 'feet to 2.2 feet - ar-eduction in
minimum 'side yard...fr.om ,8 feet., .to 6 feet._ and ,7 feet, respectively;
and a'r:eduction 1' aggregate side yard'f °rom 20: °feet to' 13 feet.
He further advised that the surrounding pro,pertv been .
notif:ed.of the requested variance and,no negative correspondence
had been recei.ved,.. °
Mr. Maier informed' the Commis ^sign that' 'the variance was necessary
to save the existing 'lice oak trees "and also to keep the cut and
fill, of the site to a, minimum,. A, brief discussion followed with
regard °to the slope and the'anticipated grade and fill required..
Con p 'L Pop moved to, make t_i�e` four findings required . for a. varf-
ance,as indicated in the staff report: and grant the requested
„ variances. The, motion, was seconded by Comm: Wright.
AYES 5 NOES 1 ABSENT ,:. 1
Comm_'. Head qualified his "No' vote by stating' that the applicant
liad been aware of the existing trees when `he purchased the
property,, and he di.d.:not think the , Commission should set a
precedent' 'of granting ,a far -fiance to :_protect trees.
SONOMA.COUNTY: - 1.:. Margo & Leonard JaY and Alex & Irene'Csutoras _'Mr. Gray
' REFERRALS.: ,explained the .request for rezoning from an A -I-B5 District to
an R -R District for ° 3. :F6'8 acres located on the west side of
Berger :Lane and south of Magnolia Avenue to :allow a 'minor"
•subdivision into `bur ` lots." 'He further advised that the
applicant. had also submitted "an application- , to the, City
Council for four du,tside sewer' ;hookups which - was being
processed,. Mr'. Gray stated that rezoning should not be used
as; a leverage, to grant .sewer applications, and therefore
suggested' that the ';Planning" Commission rec'ominerid .approval of
"'.the rezoning,prov:ided that the outside sewer connections are
approved. He: ,explained' that 'granting of the sewer connec-
Lions was critical,' because `septic ;syst'ems are not allowed in
the county for lots of'' less, '.than I -i /2 acres in size.
'The location ,o the' site' in relation to the, city mits 'was
questioned: Mr Gray advised. tha "t "the property is adjacent
to a corner, of.the city limits -, since the existing city
limits boundary .ext`ends. down Berger 'Lane.
Pet' alums it Plamm�
y
Comm - iutes, ,April. 76 1976a
g ssion Mn
. r C .
-
I -
ate "r which Comm.. Head' moved . to
f rward� the'oSonoma Co unty, Planning .Cgnimssion
. „ `� 4 to "the proposed
:stating that^ °the ;Commission;;has no object
„• 4
connections are
re a-
zoning, _,provided tti "at the; "four ,sewer cone
o
oved `, rezonlnaction • The motion was seconded
pi g
PrWat'ers,'the
'by Comm'
,, •.
�OESs0ABSENT
:2'P' John»�';Gr'ioff', = Mr._° �Gray.�'.eAp °la= ined�. ;the, "' ; request fo'r a: change of .
" ' '• i s
zoning class f is '' ,ibn, Irom an A B "35 .District' to, an ' R -R'
> +.D str.� ctti �f,or"�:' 1. acr�es .at 110'•'Jess, e Lane, to allow
;, .
- ,•.. the r.l'egalization ;'of ari,,exisfing•A14 ex and . family
_
_:t'., ;, , dwelling and';;also';allowr;the,,owner'r to „,remode'1 the duplex
rental' ;,un ts,:r; He. inf_ormed ; the, Comm ss'iori. ,that the staff
cont`ained.,an error .with re and g
P designation, .
r e or,t g , _.,
hick should „be chap ed to "subur low density` use allowing
w g i
,•r°
mum o'f[2, units , er
: - .,. , a' maxi g P •
r acre= ,
.
t
Mr. John Per.ry,, a'member of- the audience, informed the
Commission • 'that he was' „an'adjacent property owner and did not
s nce�h "''had visited - the Assessor offf ce���and.ihe. As'sessor�' s
cat y ,ab:out ,. 9 of 'an acre';
map ind ' ed the site was;: ac ll
az
Comm Head :quest'oned'.''if the duplex "was legal 'at the time it
e
tiad.'b`een, constructed- _,Mr.' Gray 'replied that the County had
not xfurnished', that ,iftformat- ion_,;; He' •further advised that,
_ •,accord'ing to ca`L_'cu�lations hez had, j ust made using' ,the plot
'i
_: ' ,plank•, the. , lot, was•• 2 ; xr 215, - ,rarid . therefore , ap,proximately
„
pp who expl'ained,he
airman Horcizatcalle he a lcarit
,up.on the
• -
." ..
�, o remodel. plea and make his
had. requested A,-,.rezoning t the du
r proper:ty`�cbnformin He 4 vlsed :that the property was
g•
currently'serviced by electricity .vaIter, a septic sewage
system { ", •and' :he had bought, 'p'rop'ett'y as' it_ now exists.
Chairman `Horciza , asked, .him how large the "lot was;, and 'Mr.
we lied that t�iwas 218!' Mr: Bal des
iGrioff r P ' ,informed
r
' . � the ..0 ommiss )ion he- lived next door, and the duplex was ac- .
•.
y ';a chicken ;house converted into hiving ,quarters..
ftuall"
'
i t e ens it w
g q ” of three un ts
C omm. Wri ht uestione ”
,.
.. „
o d r ay ep ed ,.
P P g P P, d. M
b,e. a � rlate ; for the' ,zonin ro ose_
h .. ,
that the Commission' wa's� only' to r th'e application .in
, _Pw
' with City's'existng. plans,
?a tts}conformance,'to.tHe
- - - density of
_ . I
nd su ested " acre r allowedi e __ I 1.
g
e t y
Co y r°the County
two. un P _
-
d'etermne if their calculations`' "are • -' 'in fa'ct,..ac'curate or„
•' ',r,
:,,.• . r.,, 'Comm. *iaPopp expressed concern �dbout:''setting a
_. _
•
• in the 'area.
F or oth ro ert owners
recedent f p p y
, .
. .;� ,P"
letter
.'aC,omm.. ,Head. moved to direct. the staff -to prepare , a to
t unty indicatin no 0 osition the proposal conforms
he Co g
Copp
,,,. °,., it
, n' o i i�' „',. •,. ., i. '" ' '! d ,
0
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes,;
to the City's.. - for- th'e. area'. !Comm. Wateta .expressed
•
' = ' `• {' concern •app'r iof-.:,t-lie : rezon ng� constitute spot
zoning. Mr:' :Gray:x.r that ,the, :,.Commission was only to be
' concerned with sthe' City's' -max mum•�.,densi.ty of two units per
acre >ChalEjh n Horciza.. remarked •.t-hat the. information from
the, , County appeared, to be:'Ihaccur-ate :in size and descr
M'r. Gray stated that the Commission could.:make the concerns
of the audience known and 'ask them"to cheek `on. the accuracy
of the parcel size He then explained :for the benefit of the
audience that - request -was :outside the city
•limits -'but in "the.'t,ener,al "Plan area, . and thereforo the County
! `'< has' re'f.erred th`e . matter•_to. the Planning Commission- for
commen'ts'-regar-,ding its'conformance• to the City 20 -year
s ` ` - f •- °•plan. = .Mr: 'G "ray •clar`i•fied'•.•that: the° Planning Commission only
makes.' a .recommendation to .the. =County; who in, turn takes the
inal action_ ' -of rezoning
.Mr Perry stated '.he !: not -f eel: any decision should 'be made
based on, erroneous information. Another adjacent owner, Mr..
- •.Blunt -!stated'''he "had previousay tried, to buy the ubje`c't
•`:property an •had,'b told it wash :. 9..' an acre and that the.
a 'converted.•ch ckerr `houso 'He also, stated that,
there' were' septic �t_ank ;prob_lems 'which 'h'e did not think ,should'
be •' compounded;;
F
"suggested clarification of .the
= Chairman problem to
the` CountHorciza'
-
Y who would in•turn'be responsible` for °strag -hten
- 'ing -' out any p,rob'lems: Comm. Head - stated he _'did ,not feel that
- the' Commission couId,d "s'agre'e'witla the rezoning- .if it .was in " '
conformance' with ;tfie °City's `plans;: _,He also: stated that it
was immaterial to him what was actually ofi-the property.
Mr. Griof f clarif -ed `that the :chicken houses had already been
-
r converted to lining .quarters before :he ; purchased the pro-
perfy. Re further: ;stated did :not understand. why the
rieighb:ors ,were ob:j ecting: zo the'.amp;rovement of the appearance
r a' of the pr.ope`r - ty., "
Comm Wright, questioned >'P -f the ad 'sacent neighbors were
present in •the •aud`ien'ce ° ".if' .their- main objiection was to
:the': amount •of! units' on ,,the site: Mr.. Blunt spoke for the
proper,. owners present, stat -in , the density was the ,main.
objection. He' also stated ; that .he had . propOsed 'to .,buy the
sub.j ect .. =9 acresa and place' 'three ,new' units on ,it,. and' had
} ` been told by the= County " "" :H Ins;p`ector. Mr. Doolittle, that
- he c'ou'ld - ;only= cons•trudb "two` `new un`i'ts . Mr: Blunt also stated
that 'when Mr;. ,Griof f.'Ihad' - - ° pur.'ch'ased .the property the neighbors
that
had - 'been:•infarmed by a real 'estate lagent that ° he intended to
build:' new units.` `'He Wwent: 'on -'to "speak of problems,
witl% th °e'`t'hants . -of the.' duplex ,and'-the lack. of" an adequate'
sewer s,y.stem °for the Jessie Lane•area. Comm. asked
Mr Blunt how many units he presently'had 'on his property : and
if'It was. _zon °ed, 'the wino-. :as =Mr. �Grioff's. property. ' "Mr. Blunt
" replied `ghat 'lie liad •.three 'homes ori; l -, 9 acres:, and . it was
" zoned 'the same as,rMr.. Grioff'.s to the best 'of 'his knowledge
-4-
Mr:. Gr
ay explained that about ,two, years ago �a minimum of 1..5
acres p,er unit was established because of septic problems in
the area ,Vince 'the fan'd developed' before that time ranged
fxom as amall''as one- quarter of , an acre to five acres, the
�.,y. m nimumybut were�legal do ted He further_ e
not meet the 1.5 ac
,ran stated that
the Commission was ..only ro test the 'request against the
'City's General Pl'an,'and the lCounty was to consider the
aspect . 'zoning, - nei;gt boss' ,"" c�o*lain s , etc..
Comm. ; Head �a thd'r-ew his .motion ;' Comm Wright then moved to
{ direct; thel Planning Director to ''forward a letter to the
County indicating no opposition to' "the proposed rezoning,
o
� r provided that the' resulting density does not exceed the
maxim are dwellings ;per acre aPP q septic
two n at ade uat`e
s certified, Comm Po stated he felt the correct
size the:lois. should be Mr. Gray replied that
the matter 'of the' accurate "lot size would be included in the
letter. "The motion was 'Se "'conde&by' Comm. Head.
I AYES 4`° ' A �NOES 2` ABSENT 'l
Comm " Pop
p''°stated he,`v'oted. ''No" because he felt there was
inadequate "'control over this eyp'`e ofI�'development. Comm.
Waters ' qualifi.ed his 'No" vote by s- tating the size of the
land was'not clearly defined and he also felt the action
could consttute ' zoning
Mr' Gray in`_formed.the audience that the County would hold a
pt 'hearn g on A p r l 15t hi. at 3:45L p.m. on the rezoning if
ubhc� I
,they wished.to attend.
q '
I Ursula �,H & 'George Lakos - "Mr., Gray briefly 'explained
quest f,or a Use.Pe
r e rmit to all'ow'a' commercial boarding
^ •1, , at- 430 Blvd. North in an A -1 -B
st loca ted , y
Di strict Comm Head ues " at would happen if the
a e,, o e oca
property' was annexed to the'city, since the City requires one
acre per animal Mr'. Gray replied that traditionally a Use
is hst=ill valid if property is annexed but the possi-
bhty' ".of ��annexat =ion at this time is .quite slime. Comm.
! `k Water`s istated that tie' use 'wouldY only' be valid ".as long as the
^ I., . .
,land ,was ,zoned' agricultural, ..and" therefore the Use Permit
would b'e,,:riegated if annexation and rezoning-to residential
uses occur -red:
`
tt 'rect � riing Director- to forward a
leer Hea d v �d to ' di
tO the Count y in di cat ingP no, opposition to the proposed
- n was seconded,by Comm. Hilligoss. It
� , .
was clarif
Use a rmit 'The motto ed that ttie, sign imitation indicated in the staff
re ort was a Sonoma ;Count r Planning's aff recommendation.
P y..
AYES ' 6 NOES 0: ABSENT 1 '
-5-
Petaluma :Cit y, . Planning -
- Gommisson Minutes April 6 197
Petaluma City Planning, ;commission Minutes, April 6.,'1976"
_ 5:. Ace .:T ..Marcel'lu's Considerate on•'of a parcel map submitted by
•
;. Ace T Mai - ellus fora 4 -lot split .16,cdted at `98b Bodega
Avenue in.. Count C2P and';ABS'. Dist ricts
y
_ .. �. J.
Mr .Gray .informed the Commission that the, City Council had
denied the request: for sewer` se rvice.to this proposed. r minor
subdivision at.. their April 5tl meeting. He state$ that he
concerned - about the cul4e- sac.9t,keet, which is approx ,-
,was
y , ince the City's Subdivision.
mately 1 080 feet. in length,
Ordinance standards_do:,not permit , a.'cul -de -sac over 4 feet
in length,. Mr -. Gray stated that the: length of "the cul -de- -sac
could be mitgated'.if'the total development serviced by this
cul -de -sac, street would be restricted to the three rear
_ parcels, of the proposed minor subdivision. He therefore
suggested that the.:Plannng.Commission allow the 4 -lot "split
on the condition that an apace easement be filed which
would the development to 'one uni4t for each :parcel,
te agreement be entered into. Mr, Gray
and a prava .tr
stated that he thought this method would provide an appro-
priate, division of` land,., since the restriction would run with
the, `property as a restrictive covenant on the title report.,.
r , He. added -that, without these PrOV his recommendation
would ,be .for. denial. of the ,subdivi "sign,.
Mr. ated he would be willing to .enter into such
si slnce
reement. he did not intend further division, of the
an a g ree m ent, _
land. He questioned if' the 'provision could - be 'included that
if City sewer was ever provided ;that, the property could be -
split further. .Mr. Gray replied :that the availability of: a
sewage system would not. change 'the logic for the accept.dbIil ty
of the road pattern •and 'the concern for :adequate fire,protection.
He stated that the - property owner could..'always request that
the easement be . removed _if , an• overriding concern existed.
Comm Hilligoss questioned: if Mr.'Marcellus had considered
looping the 'road `out to Paula Lane: He ;stated that the p.osi-
tioni of such an a ces,s would result in o of the parcels
being reduced too :much. in Gray stated that the,
looping system would 'provide superior access and he would not '
recommend the open spate easement if that. type of road pat -
.. tern ex islted. Coup,,, Waters; questioned what effect such a
road.pattern.would have on the property to the, t Mr.
Gray replied that ''it 'would o.pen.• up:' access to the rear of the
property, but since the street would 'be in private ownership,
they.would,have no right to_ utilize it.unless. they bought,
into it—
Mr. Mr Mareellus ques- tioned. what the" siandards' would be for the
street Mr'. Gray ;r- r eplied that the standard mechanism .is, a
private str'ee,t agreement., and the usual requirement for
street construction is,.what is necessary for a 16 -.ton truck,
which is 2 feet of , gubbase,., 2'feet of import;, and 4' inches of
concrete or macadafn.
-6-
Petaluma. City `Planning Commiss on•Miriutea, Apr i-1 b, 1976
;h
A discussion followed regarding..possible future development..
Mr,. Gray recgmmended;,aIternate' met hods of "limiting the de-
velopment by restricting the private street to the three
property owners or by requiring of a 1 -foot non-
access „eas,ement to prevent access to the road from the
adj acent property. Mr. Tarr,,, clarified that the'recommen-
a,tions
in the staff report had been made :assuming that
annexation would. take place bec ause of waster and sewer
connections s not now the case. Mr.
dons being granted, which w
arcellus stated that the ' n�,hoiise. presently is on city
water, 'Lot 4 „has a well'.,, and Lots 2 and 3 would,also have
well Discussion followed regarding the open space easement
recommendation and its feasibility, and the controls that
would r'esul "t `if annexation .occurred,.
Mr. Marcellus stated that the,ref- usal.of providing City water
and sewer 'n, itself precluded dividing the,lots any further
because of the County's 12- acre''restrictiori per dwelling unit
for & septic system. Mr., Gray stated that a private street
'agreem6nt between -the three property owners that restricted
tfie, us'e of , the private" street 'to those three parcels would
probably be sufficient..
,Comm. Hilligoss direct the Planning Director to
forward a letter to SonomaGCounty indicating 'no opposition to
Ukppp:oposed 4 -lot subdiv.,ision, provided that a private
street agreement be entered,into which would restrict the use
of the
The he private street to the three property owners involved. -
y
was seconded b,y Comm. Waters.
AYES' 6. NOES , 0, ABSENT ,1”
Mr;, Bob Wells `'of' the Indep "'endent Journal asked for a clarif ica-
tion : of why a Commissioner was required` to qualify a "No" vote.
He was informed that the q'ualificat'ion was only an informal
request' by. the Council formatters that are to be forwarded to
U
them for ifinal action and aids in 'their decision, making. Comm.
Waters and Comm. Popp stated ; they preferred to explain their
dissenting votes.
Comm'. Head questioned how'` °some of the sign ordinance codes -could
be modified.• Mr. Gray rep`li'ed that, .the'City 'Counci'l would have
to take action on that matter..
P.M. e toea ng : no al Meeting on 9 'further business the mee g” J P 9:13
Ther ,r' il 12 1976 at 7. rned' m .
no tin ad ou
30 m. in the
Council Chambers', for a'joint meeting with the Community Develop -
ment Commission and the Pr.o'ect` "'Area'Committe
� e` with r -egard to the
central business district ,revitaliation plan.
Chairman
-7-