Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/07/1976A G E N D A ® PETALUMA CITY PLANNING' �' JULY 7, 1976 REGULAR MEETING "` ` 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL' CHAMBERS,' -CITY HALL'--: PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA The Planning Commission encourages applicants or their :representatives to be avail- able at the meetings to' , 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 `,H'ead Hil1igoss _ HOrciza Popp Water's Wright STAFF: Ronald F. Hall;.°Plannirig Director• Fred E. Tarr, Associate Planner APPROVAL OF`MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE CONSENT CALENDAR: California Co -op Creamery :a - Consideration of site design plans for replacement of the`burned out bottling plant and related facilities for the existing site located on the corner of Western Avenue and Baker Street. SAMBO'S RESTAURANT - Environmental Inpact%Ques;t onnaire evaluation and site E.I.Q. EVALUATION & design review -c'onsid'erations for the construction of a SITE DESIGN REVIEW: Sambo' -'s Res' taurant -to ' be-located at 1096 Petaluma Blvd... North on the'south•east corner of Shasta Avenue & Petaluma Blvd. North. VAN BEBBER BROS. - Environmental Impact Questionnaire evaluation and site E.I.Q,.. EVALUATION &, design review considerations for a 1,496 square foot SITE DESIGN REVIEW: single- story office building to,b.e located at 727 Petaluma, Blvd. South. VICTOR NAGEL - Environmental Impact Questionnaire evaluation and site E.I_.Q. EVALUATION•& design. review - considerations for expansion of the exist - SITE DESIGN; REVIEW:. ing recreational vehicle storage lot located at 1250 Lindberg Lane. THOMAS L. SIPES - E:.I.Q. 1. Public Hearing to-evaluate-the Environmental Impact EVALUATION /USE PERMIT Questionnaire for the conversion of the single - family U8- 76. /SITK DES.IGN'REV'I.EW: residence located at-860 Cherry Street into a pre- school. Pet luma City Planning Commission Agenda, July 7; 1976 2. Public Hearing to consider the'Use Permit application to allow the use of a single= fami.ly,r- s located in an R -1- 6,500 zoning district at 860 Cherry Street. as a pre- school by the Montessori :Children;'`s •House 'of Petaluma. 3.:' Site;; ;design - review .cons•iderat•i.ons . the. •.p:roposed conversion.,- GRANT E. WARTENA - E,.-I_Q. 1. Public Hearing to evaluate the Environmental Impact EVALUATION. /USE PERMIT•. Ques ttedL' f.or the proposed Belli -Deli U9- 76 /SITE'DESIGN:REVIEW: Donut & Grocery delicatessen and the remodeling of the exterior of the entire commercial building lo- cated.at 6 61.7 East • Washington, Street.. 2. Public Hearing to consider allowing on -sale beer and wine in the propose d. B`ell -Deli Donut' &'Grocery deli - catessen.to -be located at 617 East Washington Street in a C -N zoning district. 3'. Site design review considerations.for the proposed delicatessen to be located•at 61;7,East Washington St reet, as well as the remodeling of the;exterior'of .the other - commercial facilities located .in• the build- ing, 609; 611,-and 613 East Washington Street. QANTAS 'DEVELOPMENT 1. Public Hearing to consider the rezoning application CORPORATION - PUD. submtted,by Qantas Development Corporation to rezone REZONING •Z9�T6•& -approximately 3.;2. acres located on North .McDowell PARK PLACE SUBD,IVISTON' Blvd. lxom ;a Planned ' Community District �tcr a Planned UNIT 1 TENTATIVE'MAP Unit. District „to - c6ris ,-truct the first phase of the r _P:ark Place -:Subdivision ADJOURNMENT 2. Consideration of the Tentative Map for Unit 1 of the Park Plate -Si bdiv s' on - -f or, the construction of 100 l 0 ? I . - ,�-M:I N U TYE S :> ,'..' PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 1976 , REGULAR. ME�ETING 7:33 P.M. - COUNCIL CHAMBERS., CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm. Hortiza, Harbersom, Popp, Wright, Waters, Head ABSENT.:. Comm. Bond STAFF: Ronal& F..-, Hal,lr, Planning I)irector. -Frank B., Gray; Community I)gvel & Services Coordinator .,.Fred E. -Tarr, ,Associate 'P.lann r Leo P. Rachal, Assocate Planner. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes .. of the meeting dated,June.15, 1976 were approved. Chairm4n,Horciza welcomed,Mt, Ronald,,Hall as our new Planning Director. He!,ref erred to, M H 11's past experience and stated we can all , hope! to, benefit from working. with, him. Mr. Horciza also welcomed the newaCity Council, x,ep,resentative to the Planning Commission, Mr. Jim Harber8-on. He reflected on his past service with the ;City, qbuncilz�nd,,stated. that the Planning Commission looked f orward to him. ROBERT E. GADOW,_ Mr. Gray. ,advised . a,jetter, f rom, Mrs. Gadow had been received, ITE: DESIGN REVIEW: as well .45 . a .letter f-rom the f irm of. Laf.ranchi, Mickelsen, representing Mr. and Mrs. Gadow., Correspondence is regarding the conversion of `a two - ,story residential structure locutpd at,,415 . "W Street, to. an of use (a C-C District) . The Building,-. Inspector� has, r�quiredi the installation of a one-hour f ire,, wall on the; n,qr1-.,t,.h,e'as,t',, wall, because the wall is only three feet -from, the property line . and, not 10 feet as required by the Unif.prm.Bujoing Cole.;. i This correspondence.-was referred to the Planning Commission by the City. Council for informational, only. This matter was f ; t : .. 1 I referred to the Board of Building Appeals, who will make the de- termination. KAMPGROUNDS OF, K.O..A. has sent: •a letter X.o..:the PlanniRg Department requesting AMERICA: modificati Lt'e - d& _s fi,.,review for expanded. cam ing throug I ; the. Labop Pay weekend, in order to facilitate p the overflpw crowds have experienced so far this year. They ,,.-,t sl:ee field of approx imately have been a4pwin - ... .g.,Samp.ers -three -;acres -in size, which adjoins ,.-.,the main campground. K. O.A. asks, that the ,-.site .4es:i gn,,,revi.ew be modified to allow use of this property for the , overflow crowds. -Comm. Head .suggqstigd_that, the,,.,P.lanni.n,g,-fpepa.rtment staf be given ,'._the authority,. t.,p qq��- matters of this nature in order to expe- dite matters, rather than having requests coming to the Commis- sion. However, Comm.-Harberson stated he was against giving this r � + Petaluma.City Planning Commission.Minuwt es, July 7. ; 19.76 j authority to the Planning Department staff. He feels that any modifications t'o sit"e review`should'be by the Commission. Comm. Harberson:questioned the alleged - inc- idence of the Memorial i' Day weekend. Mr. 'Gray stated that the Police Department, Fire �{ Department,, Health Department', and Sherif'f's Office had investi- gated the: matter and Iound--'that'.no wrong doings; had occurred. Comm. Waters then .made a' motion to - allow -the modification to the �! s t.e .design review effective through `'the Labor - ;Day - weekend, 1976. The motion was seconded by`�Comm. Head. AYES 6 NOES 0- ABSENT'. 1 _ � Helga -Kuck Mr. Tarr . stated that the property was originally Tar ' j zoned. A2 -B''S (I.. er minimum) and was rezoned AE -B5 (5 acre i minimum), in prepara.t on�fgr placing the property in an Agricul- tural Preserve however the applicant -d'ecided not to enter into an !Agricultural -Preserve -agreement. The property -was willed to Mrs . 'Kuck and her two children on the death :of' her .husband .e:, Mrs. Kuck owns one- half - of the pro - perty and - the children own ..the remaining half (i/:4 each,). . Mrs. I` Kuck now 'w 'shes to ' g ift deed" two acres to her grandson. She cannot sell the property .to him; but wishes to make a gift of it. The applicant indicated they. have no intention of selling the— land. i According to the ,General. Plan, the area 'is now designated as Rural, and the • st°af-f feels - there• should be a five acre minimum ` density.- Staff - recommdnds that a letter be sent, to the County " - indicating opposition to the 1.5 acre zoning `and recommending a minimum five .acre density'.', A motion , was, made by Comm. Harbers'on, seconded by-Comm. Waters, indicating opposition to proposed rezoning 'to A2' B5 ('1;5 acre minimum) and recommending a rezoning i' to ,allow for a density - of one unit per five acres. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT -1 SONO_MA COUNTY. Sonomar,in Landscape "(2500 Petaluma Blvd. North): - Mr. REFERRAL:. Tarr gave the stiff .r.epor`t,. ands stated that the applicant requests C a Use.�Permit to .allow' the ;. sale of. 'landscaping material on this + articul'ar iece; of ro ert ` The lot area =is °a roximatel p p: p. p y. PP y �i 32,000 sq. ft..� The..Environmental Design-Plan designation for this ati�a of e p oosed would he Envirormen P P' P P Y' - tat Design Plan .I M_r. Robert `Meyer; Mr..-. `Ronald. Hall and Mr:. Frank Gray recently appeared before the Sonoma County Board , of . Supervisor's regarding i� Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, July .,7, ,1976 the, Petaluma Blvd North ,Study Area Over a year ago there was supposed to be a point study effort made of'this area. However, to date, "there has been no .study. Sonoma '.County seems to feel it is not their re'sponsibility,to control'this area, since it will more than likely become a part 'of' .the City of Petaluma City. It was noted that the amount of traffic that will be generated from this prop' -d usage might'have a negative impact on the environment. The Coiaissioners that the line must be drawn somewhere regarding the commercial development in the Petaluma Blvd. North area. Comm. Wright made a motion recommending ap- proval of the,Use Permit.,. with a,three -year limitation. The motion was seconded by C'omm.'Head but was defeated. Comm. Harber- son then made a,motion that 'a letter, should. be forwarded to the Sonoma County Planning Department in „opposition to. the proposed commercial, use ,of the property;; "C'omm. Popp seconded the motion. The Commission also asked: that the letter- should state that the County and the ,City of Petaluma should begin an immediate study on the Petaluma Blvd. North ,area. , AYES 5 NOES` 1 ABSENT 1 P.ETALUMA CO -OP The Site ,Design Review Coinmittee'recomtnended acceptance of the CREAMERY:. plans as submit "ted, with the 'recommendation to delete Item #3, which calls for landscaping of the area near the accessway to the weighing,'scales. It appears -that'this landscaping will impair truck movement to the.scale. C Comm. Head' asked if there was a public hearing regarding the rebuilding of the facility .and it was pointed out by Mr. Gray that since it "was not an expansion of the facility that no public hearing is required. When _it , appeared there were people ,'in the audience who would like to: make comments r.egarding 'the;pr.oj'ect.,' Comm. Harberson recom- menaea that the. to "be `r' * oved from the Consent Calendar and. opened .fq,r public discussion, Using the viewfoi.l,, Mr. Gray the existing facility and the- improvements-to be Comm. Head asked if the drainage-of milk products into the City'.s storm drain had been discontinued. Mi. Gene Benedetti stated that "waste from the Creamery was .dis- c harged directly -into the City's; sanitary' sewer, and therefore, .not into the Petaluma River., Mr. Gray stated to clarify the issue that a crew • from the Sewer •Depa_r.tment walked the. storm drain system around'the'Creamery , and found several old pipes that had been plugged. All of the discharge.of the waste material from the Creamery site go.through the Water Pollution Control. Facility for processing. Comm. Popp recounted the growth of the Creamery and d that over the, year s the ' Creamery%has to-comply in any way they could with the City. He feels•that they have, and are stxll.work ng to improve `development and to improve the noise situation. They -have worked ' to iv6."with the neighborhood and keep the payroll in the " 'City. -3- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minut`es,' July 7,1976 Comm.. Wright .stated that, we seem' to 'lie aafking about the use of the land, rather.than the.site design, and:tha't our discussion should be-,cgnfined,.to the`site design of the building. Comm. Horciza concurred with Comm. Wright and commented that the site design 'indicated a'good replacement for the burned out building that is,there now, Comm. Harberson'moved for approval of the•site design, with the elimination of Condition #3. The motion was seconded by Comm. Popp. AYES 5 NOES 1 ABSENT' 1 SAMBO'S RESTAURANT 'Mr. Gray used the videotape equipment to review the present site E.I.Q. EVALUATION &. for thisl proposed SarbW s Restaurant on Petaluma Blvd. North and SITE DESIGN REVIEW: Shasta Avenue: The Planning 'staff indicated that no advers,e comments had been received on the E.I.Q. Comm. Head made -a motion to - direct Mr. Ronald• Hall to prepare a ,Negat -ive Dec_ laration. The motion was seconded by. Waters. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT.1 A motion to accept site design. review subj,ect.to conditions indicated ' in -the staff report was made by Comm. Head and seconded by Comm. Waters,; AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT-1 VAN BEBBER BROS. - Mr. Gray used Ithe videotape equipment to review the. present site Q..EV,ALUATION & for the po g g P Blvd. South. SITE DESIGN REVIEW: The staff ort had no, advertseoenvixonmentalfindings. The staff recommended that the Commission direct the Planning Director to prepare a Negative'Declarat ion. The Site.Design Review;Commi.ttee agreed with the sev'en'•conditions. A motion was made -by Comm. Head•, ' to direct the P;lan.ning Director to write. a, Negative Decla- ration. The motion was seconded by Comm. Wright. AYES 6 "NOES 0 ABSENT 1 A motion was made to�accept-the Site Design by Comm. Wright, and 'was seconded by Comm.,Head. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT -! VICTOR NAGEL E.1.Q. EVALUATION & SITE DESIGN REVIEW: Applicant requests -site design- review and environmental question - naire review for an expans,kon.• -a recreation vehicle storage lot. The site is. developed with a house, a 2,:2.00 sq ft. storage garage for per a fenced open' space where the proposed storage will take place, and the -rear portion' "of the lot, which is being used-for the temporary vehicle.storage'whle the applicant resur- faces 'the surface of the `storage site on the adjoining lot to the -4- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes,-July 7, 1976 south. For the development, the applicant.will use 26,000 sq. ft. The for the st*oiagd'lot posedi st8rd - T h area, etween the house, storage garage, and the pr - � i ge' ! ' site* :will be'bld,�_Ik-topped and will be W used for Access to the-adjbin'ing"dite''ib the rear. Plans also show:a free-standing.,sign-and landscaping around the existing house. The. site is, pe an �.tia�n'guiAr­in'' h" . "level. The subject lot has . p a not , been legally' spilt -from the Ad" oiihin ' 'lot to the west The - - . . __ , - � 1 , - - I the �, J_ _g, lots..were crea �a ti .�e ,t �Lgquis on of U.S. 101 through the . area. and.'were'crdated"by''g'ran t not by parcel map. Therefore; accordin� the Calif - 6r'nia State Map Act, they are two d I 1 1 - 9 P. t -,. I & J oning.parcels' of ldfid - created by deed and are not con- l, sidered.as legally subdivided iots., Mr. Gray stated that since these - two parcels are used for one bu'siness a parcel map must be recorded combining 'them. The parking, shows 38 10-f9ot,wide spaces, along with 11 additional.spaces indicated at the rear of the lot. Reviewing agencies 7&ade ' bo ­ adV6rse' comments. The City Engineer recommends that ha-lf-stteet improvements-be required as a con- dition, of ..sit :e,.desi -- gn,,approval. The Fire,Department requires the installation of two fire hydrAnts and the Sonoma County Water Agetcy and drainage plans be prepared in con- formance with th the'.Son6na County Water.Age'ncy's Flood Control Design.,Criteria.. E.I.Q. eval' ti(j-n'.'i that the p development is in accord- ance with-the Ci ty's pLans."for the air its appearance will be compatible with surrounding devial6pments and the proposed use will'n,ot generate excess traffic on Lindberg Lane. The 'reviewing agencies have made.no,adverse comments. �Rents. and it does not appear, therefore,. that 'the proposal -will, have a significant adverse ef fect. �oft . the environment if the conditions of site design ap- proval,.are adhered to. The recommendations on the Environmental Impact Questionnaire are that. in view the above considerations•, the proposal should not have a,signif,icant adverse effect on the environment. Mr. Gray that the, possibility existed that the exist�. ing storage garagemay not be built to proper code if being used in.conjunctibn with the commercial use, Mr. Gray stated that he does not,kn6w if.'the was�•built to commercial standards. The b:uilding -could be ln`§Pected'-,to de.termine if built to proper commercial standards. ''ThOre was .a. motion .made by Comm. Head., to direct the Plann"frig Director to prepare a Negative Declaration. The motion was seconded by Comm. Harberson. AYES .6 '.NOES. .0 ABSENT 1 Petaluma City. Planning - Commission .,Mintites, 'July '7, 1976 THOMAS L. SIPES E . I . Q,. `EVALUATION / USE PERMIT U8 - 76/ SITE':DESIGN REVIEW:. Comm. Head ;then_made a motion to accept the site design review, • subject fo alT of staff`s recommended conditions. Motion seconded by Comm. Waters. AYES 6 NOES 0'' ABSENT 'l Comm. Popp questioned if�the applicant-was aware of the.conditions for the site design acceptance. Mr. :Nagel then stated that he will appeal the 'conditions of the site design review regarding street improvements and the ektending of water lines to the subject property for'the 'two fire hydrants required by the'Fire Department Mr, Nagel stated that it would cost in the area of $150,000 to .do tliis.'work, and `lie cannot afford this. Mr. Gray advised him of''possible pay'-back arrangements made by the City. This pay -back arrangement is strictly a decision made by the City Council. Mr. Gray'de_scr" bed the proposed project and gave.the Planning Department:'s recommendations. Staff. recommended that if a'fter'review the Planning Commission found that the proposed project did not.have a significant adverse impact �on the: `eii`vironment, it should direct the Planning Director to prepare a Negative Declaration Staff recommended approval of the Use Permit, in view of the determination that `the - proposed pre- school would -not constitute a nuisance detrimental to the public welfare','subj ect to the.fol- lowing conditions. 1) The app plicant shall schedule the times when children will be picked up so- not 'than three cais will arrive within a four- minute period' at the subj'ect,site,. 2) The applicant shall comply_ with all Fire Marshal requirements prior to the occupancy of the building. In view =of site des gn'consid'eratiow -, recommendation was for approval of the proposed design indicated.on,Alternative, #2, Parking Circulation Plan, subject to�t_he'f'ollowing conditions. 1) Five -"foot high wood fencing comparable to that used along the right side property line shall.be prowided.alorg the rear of the lot, and 'Where it is not. currently in place along the right side property line in the - backyard. 2) Appropriate ground cover'.shall be used in the rear playground to protect the children - while at play. 0 3) A combination of 'trees, shrubs,. and /or ground coves shall be planted in the area surrounding the driveway. ®' M Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, July 7,:1976 - 4) A detailed- landscape plan shall be •submitted to the Planning Director for review and prior to the issuance of a - building permit`, identifying existing'and proposed trees, shrubs and ground coverl.- 5) The applicant shall comply with all :other applicable City ordinances.' Using the video) tape 'equipment:; - Mr. Gray :was able to point out the location of the proposed pre_ school -on Cherry Street and indicate how Cherry Street is improved only on the side of the street where the School is-located while the opposite side of -the 'street is unimproved -. At the site' of the proposed pre - school, Cherry',Street becomes very narrow';•with drainage ditches on both sides, and there are blind corners in.the immediate vicinity. Mr. Gray pointed out that if the Commissioners feel they had received'su'fficient information in.-the site design review and the staff report /recommendations -�to indicate no adverse 'environmental impacts resulting from the project, it would not be necessary to requiielMr. Sipes. to file an E.I°.R. Mr. Gray also pointed out that if after having a public hearing, the Commission felt more information vas necessary_t `o evaluate the environmental impact, an E.I.R. could be required: Comm pointed out that if the Commission is to represent the people, it would be the Commis- sion's, - duty,•tof honor: the r:ecommendati -ons• of the majority of the property owners in the area: Comm. Wright questioned whether or not it would be possible'to.take . up_the question of the Use Permit first. Mr. Gray pointed out;that first the Commission had to determine whether the :proposed Use Permit would have an adverse environmental impact. If, th_e.Comm ssion,decided it would need more information and the applicant were required to file an E.I.R., the Use Permit would not even be - considered at this meeting. Mr. Hall stated that the =staff had received no adverse comments from reviewing agencies. However;-the Commission could ask for additional information if it.feels such would be required. If unfavorable- public testimony'is'- it would be virtually impossible not- to-ask for an. to the fact that if any court- - action - took place as a result of the pre- school., if an E.I.R. were not available there would be.virtually no evidence to base claims that the project did not cause adverse impacts on the environment: - Mr.' Sipes indicated a number of-pre- schools-in Petaluma that are all located.in residential areas.' He then recounted their efforts to find a facility other than by converting a private residence•. The , Presbyterian` Church,• where they-' presently located, is planning a school program of their own, 'and in view; of this, the Sipes were required to find another location. Mr. Sipes also stated that "the City•Building Inspector; Fire Marshal, City Planner, and City Engineer; approved of the site. They intend to -7- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes,, July 7,.1976 , leave•.the. property as it is and will not remove any trees. The 'tan -bark part the backyard area., and the rest would be grass. • Blacktop , would only be placed on -the curve, driveway in front, which represents only 1,200 sq. ft.* Comm. Horciza expressed concern,,regarding excess traffic generated by the presence of the school.. Mr. Sipes stated that the Cherry Valley Schoo.l.starts sessions at a.m. and they would change their time so it would .not conflict with the arrival of the Cherry Valley students., Comm. Head asked if the majority , of the .residents would object to one vehicle bringing the children in, 1.e:., such as a van. Mr. Sipes ,indicated• that they wou.ld like to say " yesi' - to this, but since their kind of school does not generate that much money they could not afford it. When asked what kind , of -tra -fic the Sipes' expect, Mr. Sipes commented that they average 12 cars-;for - the morning session, and 9 for the afternoon session, and after having talked to parents who come from farther away, there,would probab- y-be,more car pooling than current:. Theref:ore,,•they. possibly reduce the number of cars to 10 in the morning, with the nine remaining in the after- noon. Mr., Sipes indicated the entire play area would' be surrounded by a five -foot solid wood fence. They intend to have a flowe "r ,garden • in the backyard, and will keep the plum 'tree that is there now. Climb structures will be provided for,the children. Comm. Horciza declared .the.public,hearing..,open,for discussion of the environmental impact of the project. The first speaker was Mrs. Sandra Way. Mrs. Way presented a letter stating her approval of the pre- school site for the consideration of the Commission. Mrs -. Way stated,thait she ;could not understand the•amount• ob- jection being'made°to the relatively small number of cars involved in the transport of, the children-for sessions. It is a small pre- school. She cannot see that it would cause that much impact on the neighborhood. Referring to the. staff report.,. Mrs. Way stated that it.had been established -that there would be no negative. impact: The next speaker, Mrs. Jerr.i•Brizee, 840 Cherry Street, spoke in opposition. Mrs. Brizee stated she has lived in tYe area for 12 years-And,-has been-secretary-of the Cherry-Valley School for 9 years: Her..main- concern is the safety of,the 332 children en- rolled at -the Cherry School, 200 of'which are primary .school age. She notes, that children. going to - and.coming from the school run up and down.the hill,, and some run,and'walk in the middle of the s,treet.. They have tried to- educate the children . r-ega.rding� traffic safety, but when they are unattended, they do not obey. She fears-that there may .only be 38 children enrolled -8- Petaluma City, Planning Commission.Minutes, July. 7; 1976.' 'in the - pre-school .,nox�, but once the. school is established, there •' may be.a. greater enrollment The opinion is that once a pre school is established in the area, the site will always remain a school. It would•be doubtfull:if- a family would move in in the event the ,school. relocated. The - next speaker ,,.Dennis , Mor1a ; , 850 Cherry Street, stated he, is opposed t6'the,`school because;if it is granted it will be con - tributing, -to " •increased trafffic hazard,-and will be a liability on .the. - .property owners: Mr: Bob,McFarland, •909 Crinella,, a member of the Old Adobe Union School <Boar'd spoke in support of.the.Use Permit. Mr. McFarland is .concerned,.about the contribdtion.that , a private school has to make in public, ,ed'ucation. 'He, , stated that if .you required the Sipes" to provide E.I:.R.', it will, cost about $1.;000, and in that way you are saying "no'!'. to the -project. The children at the Montessori Schools are,highly disciplined,, the no se•of the children playing is kept to a minimum, and the-school has a strong contribution to make to -the:community...' Cpmm:•Popp questioned Mr. McFarland 1 regarding the possibility of a site "being located in his area of 'Crinella there is so,mueh development there now. Mr. Sipes added that the homes-in� that area. cannot meet the codes for backyard•area.and that the prices are prohibitive.; The next.:speaker, Mrs: Sharon.Dickenson of 856 Cherry Street, presented a report prepared for the City.of Petaluma entitled the ® Safest Route t6 ''S'cho6l. She requested that this report be entered sented the Commission...s si b. 4.7 p the�neighborh into the - 'record. She also +or anized,a, pre � y . p p nei . Mrs. Dickenson- presented as evidence several photographs taken -of single- family :resideimes that have­ been made -into pre- schools in the Petaluma.ar.ea. They show buildings with chain link fences and with.climbing structures in the•front. and rear portions of the building. .Mrs. 'Dickenson recounted the hazardous traffic con- ditions on�the- :;street. She also commented that she would consider it an- invason.of her privacy if -she had -a next door neighbor. with 20 children. She also stated that -her property, as well as other adjoining lots, are of a higher elevation and -look directly into the backyard area.. She-feels-the pre- sehool would decrease the property-value in�the area. Mrs. Dickenson also commented-that two of the adjoining lots have swinuning pools and that a - five -foot high fence would not stop children from climbing-over� after a"toy or a ball. Mr. Sipes then commented.that the children are not in the backyard area all 'day': only outside for 40 minutes in the morning. and 30 minutes.in, the afternoon,, anal since there are two sessions held, at the pre- school, there are no children present at the facility dur the lunch hour and after 3:30 in the afternoon, there are no children.present:.at all. Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, J;uly:T 1976: r.. v'^ The. -next speaker, Mrs. Dorothy;'Tanguay of ',858 Cherry Street, whose property adj°oi.ns :. the ;site,; objected because of her pool. There is also a crawl space under a'f.ence at a drainage ditch that would , all'ow',a' child. access to her .pool• area, aril she would be respon- sible - if an ,accident occurred:. ,She.. ;also ;commented that the property will not be suitable for another single - family dwelling. If this property is .rezoned .f or A. school, it will remain •a school. She, also commented that the number: of children.at'tending school next .,year may °be incr'eas'ed.. - Mr::. Sipes ,then :stated. that State law stipulates, a ratio of 12' children for-,.each teacher. They could not handle.a` bigger enrollment than what they - have because they cannot• afford to hire..other• teaches&, and the facility is not big enough to handle °more children. Mrs..Tanguay feels that she. could '`deal.with'one.family moving in .next door with children, but not 24 :children. I't is an invasion of •her privacy. She also added that there are- °two, schoolsi in the ar..e& already -, and now they are being °asked to •accept .a. third. She stated that the area has reached the :saturation point. The next speaker was Mr. Ronald,LaCasse ,of;862 Cherry Street. He commented that children:run•tip anal- down.;the embankment across the street from the 'Cherry-Valley School and this adds to the traffic hazard.. Mrs-. Carl'Bellovich, stated that she drives five children• to the Montessori School,,. and tared that she's a very careful driver. She is also aware of the .hazards children have walking to school, since she`has children•who walk to school. She stated that no one* coming in or ;going out 'of' Cherry ,Street .would go, fast; because there is no room to speed at. 'that particular spot '. The.nex.t. speaker -, was Mr. Gregoryjerrin,.who has made - independent recommendations on'•this project: 'He, ;st'ated that most of. the traffic of the Montessori people -will be coming in the widest ;part of the street and not at the..blind corners. He'helieves` there is A very real need for. the °pre - School and.he,believes the neigh borhood as .a whole,.will benefit from the project and from the improved - streets.' The next speaker was.Mr. Gilbert.Das. of; 848:Cherry Street. His main concern is with the crowded street conditions. He does not believe that you_ will know the impact the school will'have on the : 'traff ic unless thee -e is'an environmental impact report. The residents-In the area a.r•,e going •t'o. come together and ask that something be'done about the s.tr,eet conditions. Mrst. Brizee, stated that earlier they. asked.that an, asphalt. shoulder -be; construe ,ed oii the road And_ the City did a report on the whole area.- The residents -- would. if the 61 would do.:something about Street. Comm. Head asked if the ;subj ect +study. was still available, and. �Mr'. Gray stated that it had been prepared a;-sub- project :basis. Comm. Head then asked if 4 =10 1.. Peta ^luma,City Planning Commission Minutes, July 7, 1976 there was a possibility.of a,special assessment district for the residents,of Cherry Street, Mr. Gray stated that there is a problem when you ask-people , to sit and actually assess themselves. Mrs.. Tanguay`'stated that they are concerned about the traffic conditions on- Cherry.Street, they don't want another school in-the area until-the street is Mr. Hall then stated. that in the - pres'ence -.of opposition it is almost absolutely necessary that there be an.environmental impact report prepared. It is possible .that.an E.I:&.. would be ,presented and in the face of t" he opposition, the Use Permit would then be- denied. Mr. Sipes stated if they are asked to prepare an E.I.R., it prohibits them from going ahead with the project, because they cannot afford it. Comm. _Harberson stated that in view of -all the evidence presented, there -is is a problem - and the.project may have an adverse impact on the way of life in the area. Comm. Horciza then declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Gray stated that an independent consultant could be chosen by Mr. Sipes to- prepare the E.I.R. from the list of consultants available at the Planning,Department. Second, he would be re- quired to put a deposit with the City in the amount of money the report wll. cost. Then the report would be prepared for the City of.Petaluma. At this point; 'Comm. Harberson stated that he would abstain from voting,on the issue and would make -an explanation later. A motion was made by Comm. Popp that an Environmental Impact Report -be required based on-the statements made tonight. The motion was seconded by Comm. Waters. AYES 4 NOES 1 ABSTAIN 1 ABSENT 1 Comm. Harberson stated.that since he-sits on the Board of the Presbyterian Church where the Montessori School is presently located, he feels that it was proper that he abstain from voting. Mr. Gray stated that the applicant has 10 days to appeal this decision to the City Council. A short adjournment was field. The meeting was called back to order at 12:00 midnight by Comm. Horciza. A discussion on adjourning the meeting to July 13, 1976, at 7:30 p.m. was held with the representat ves;of the Qantas Development and with Mr. Wartena. A motion was then made by -Comm. Waters that the meeting be adjourned to next Tuesday night, July 13, 1976, seconded by Comm. Popp. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. Attest: Chairman -11-