HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/02/1976A G E N D A
PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION November 2, 1976
REGULAR MEETING 7 :30 P.M.
CITY COUNC- I- L'CHAMBERS, CITY HALL:. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
The :Planning. Commission encourages " -ap,p'licanfs -',or. their representative to be
available at the meetings to answer questions,- so agenda items need be
deferred to a later date due, to a lack of pertinent information.
FLEDGE ALLEGIANCE'TO.THE FLAG
ROLL CALL:: Comm. Bond , . `,_ -, Head Harber.son Horciza Popp
Waters Wright
STAFF: Ronald F. ..Hall, Planning Director_
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
CORRESPONDENCE:
K.O.A. - E-,.I.Q. 1. Public Hearing to evaluate the Environmental Impact
EVALUATION/'SITE DESIGN Questionnaire for the proposed addition to the
REVIEW: Kampgrounds of America located at Stony Point and
Rainsvill'e Road.
2;. 'Site Design Review for proposed Phase II to be
completed May 1977, and Phase III to be completed
May 1982;
CHARLES-- R- °STEPHENS 1. Public Hearing to evaluate the Environmental Impact
WAREHOUSE BUILDING - Questionnaire fora proposed light industrial
E.I.Q. EVALUATION/ warehouse building to be located at the northwest
SITE DESIGN'REVIEW: ' corner of Holm and Scott Streets.
2. Site Design Review j or the - proposed warehouse.
W. J. MORETTI - E.I.Q.
EVALUATION' AND PREZON•ING,
FROND COUNTY A -B -5 (1.5
acre minimum) to CITY
R -1 -6,500
SONOMA.JOE'S RESTAURANT'
SITE DESIGN REVIEW:
1. 'Public Hearing to evaluate the Environmental Impact
°- Ques.tionna re for a° proposed - prezoning from County
A -B -5 to -City 'R -1- 6,500,
2. Pub`1 - - - ic Hearing to consider prezoning of approximately
4.7 acres of land located on the west side of Mountain
View Avenue near Canyon Drive.
Site Design -Review .of° a proposed-800 sq - ft. addition of
storage area.and a walk -in freezer to an existing restaurant
located at 5151 Old`Redwood'Highway.
JOE LONG - °E I.Q:. 1. Public Hearing to evaluate the Envlronmental..Impact
EVALUATION /'SITE Questionnaire for two proposed duplexds'to, be located
DESIGN REVIEW: at Is and'. I, Streets.:
.2.. �Si D
a esign, Ii.eview. considerations -;f or .proposed .duplexes
S & M.CONSTRUCTIQN - Hearing to consider a r-e.quest,;to amend the Tentative:,Map
REQUEST AMENDMENT TO condition of .the , ,S &:M Subdivision on Grant Avenue to
TENTATIVE '(MAP permit an 18 %-_driveway g =rade where l5% : required
CONDITION _,.
OLD ,BUSINESS : Sit e - Des `'
..... 1'gnr -Committee .(2) .,...... . . ... ... .., . ,..
;COMMITTEE
REPRESENTATIVES:'
.,4- ;..- .:...rz,,,,,,,3.r,i -t, 1�.\
ADJOURNMENT:
v
M: I N` U, T E S.,.. , •
PETALUMA CITY, PLANNING
COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1976
` REGULAR, MEETING
- - 7.30 P.M.
•
CITY HALL �.. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
PRESENT,:, Comm'. Head,,.
Hor.ciz'a,,. Waters:,.^ Wright _- 5
ABSENT:, Comm. Bond,
Harberson, Popp
STAFF: Ronald F:, Hall, Planning Director. :-
.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of October .19, .1976;, -were approved as submitted.
CORRESPONDENCE:
None.
K.O.A.-- E.I4.Q.
Mr. Hall :explained the .request by William and Judith Wood rep -
EVALUATION /SITE
resenting'the Kampgrounds.of America to consider the addition of
DESIGN REVIEW:
Phase -II and III to the.K.Q.A. site located at the northwest
Corner of Rainsville Road, and Stony Point: Road. Phase II of the
overall would include 70, pull through sites, 9 back-
in sites,, 67 tent sites, a swimming pool.and.a satellite build-
ing to include ,lavatory, facilities; and a :recreation room. Phase
III would include 40 p'u,ll through sites,, 26 back -in sites, 7
tent sites and a satellite building -to. include lavatory facilities.
He added the applicant intends to have .Phase II opened by the
summer Hof 19.77 and construction - begin on Phase III in five
years:
A letter from 'Lewis Baer.,.465 Rainsville Road, requesting the
traffic ' pxoblems -on :Stony Point Road and Petaluma Blvd. North
=
an ion Rainsv. lle Road be rectified ..before consideration of
s
further - expansion:: of =the K6iO -.A. facility., A letter from Fred
Schram; Petd1tima Chamber'.of Commer.ce.;_stated the.proposed expan-
sign of'the,.''K�O•.A.• facility .would. generate additional financial
input: into_ p. rivately- owned • local , businesses. A petition with 44
signatures supporting :th'e - expansion, of the facility was considered.
"!
Comm,. Waters• - agreed : - -Mr .._Baer's•.comments on.the traffic con -
" •• ` '
' dtons at,'•Stony. Point .,and Petaluma Blvd. North and .recommended
this -letter:: be - referredt'to, the - Traffic Committee for cons-idera-
tion. and -:a- study` -be made :� of -,'the area. Mr. Horciza added the
letter should-'b:e, referred,,to:- ; the;•Traf•fic Committee for action.
Comm. Horciza questioned why, ;the State, Department of Housing &
Community Development was contacted. Mr..Hall.explained the
: K-.OA. 'development . comes,. under. -the State, of. California Division
of and' ,Standards',. -Title, 25_,, the, same as mobile home parks,
and: the City tref ers. their, re- commend;ation''to the State as a
matter of- routine.-
The. 'public ;hearing wash opened •to consider the Environmental
Impact Questionnaire..:
-
Petaluma City Planning Commission Novembe`-r 2,, 1976
_ :•
Mrs;. Cart 125 Rainsville Road, expressed concern regard
ing traffic conditions on, Rainsville': Road :. She , sta'•ted - her
livestock (goats).suffered considerable damage when a large
church group used the ,( ainp.groun`d. , fAc , li,t,y over.o- the Memorial Day
weekend., The bands:,, loud speakers and sermons together with
people trespassing on her pr.operty:•caused.the, animals to stain
,pede and nanny , goats •to abort their young. 'Mrs-. Cartsensen
stated K.O.A. should be. better.! :sgned, as ,cars we.m using her
driveway and proper -,for tur.na_round and.informatonal purposes
in pursuit of the campgrounds. Comm. Ho:rciza questioned whether
large group 'gatherings,'and music.is"considered . as; part of he'
K...O.A.. Use. Pe Mr. Hall stated- that it was .no.t and would be
considered a public nuisance and the complain_t law
enforcement officers. Mr. Wood stated the campground.'has been.
rented "to...several Christian churches over Day
holiday but, he would not. - be willing to allow the use of the park
by large groups, again:. He °agreed K.:O::.A. -did :need a •larger sign
ind'icatsing 't the 1 locat on..�of the camp'site!. He. disagreed , with Mr's
"Cartsens "en's -accusat °ons. and• f ound 'her. el_aim .,f'or' damages unj'us-
t fiable. • He ;stated there had :been no :.complaints : about the
campgrounds ifor. of; :people•climbing fences Comm. Wright ques-
tioned.if 'the campgr.ounds�,could be-;signed. with . larger direc-
tional} s gns• the '-intersection :of % P,etaluma_B'lvd. North and
Stony Po_rit'•Road. Mr Wood :stayed he; had petitioned..the Traf=fic.
Committee .for -'a larger directional ,sign," but was._ nformed the
present si'gnrwas sufficient, Dr. Davd-C :ousino of Rainsville
Road, stated. cars now .have 'to wait-:five minutes or. longer due to
slow moving. campers attempting to gain :entrance. onto Petaluma
Blvd. from Stony Point Road,, and if K.O.,A. is ..allowed -to expand -
their campground • fac•iliiies, more hazardous traffic conditions
would, be�created. these added - campers He added. that no
provision 'has`'been :made £or pedestrian ;foot.. traffic along Rains-
ville 'Road. The speed; -limit on.Rainsville:Road should, be re-
duced•from "55 MPH because :..of,the` bad curve and should
not "be permitted to :back,•out, of :the .camp site onto Rainsville
Road. ' 'He ..suggested a• new a entrance be made to.the K-0. A. camp-
s of of Stony .Point 'Road-: Mr-. Wood stated,. the . campgrounds
could not•accept the responsibility'for.the traffic•p.roblems in
the urea..•` Speeding :on:• Rainsville• Road,,-had been problem before
KiO,.A. was constructed.: Campers slow a most of the speed-
, _
ing is done by kids- in the area. -The t =raffc_ situation on
Petaluma',Bhvd. at :'Stony - 'Point was a° problem bef ore K.O.A.. He
sug- gested that bett'er.'pol cel. surveiklliance of the'.. area be
provided He .add'ed the entrance*to is 'located
near Stony Point 'Road. ..
0
Carol =Malcolm, 62.0 "Rainsville Road. =suggested ; the__trat,fic prob-
lens along_ Rainsville -Road -be.. investigated and ."a ^'better access
road: b•e' provided for the. campsite. Mrs. • Malcolm questioned if
smaller groups-could be permitted at.,the- K.O..A..campsite under
ther`Use Permit. Mr. Hall stated that ; large festival gatherings
are` n the Game
" allowed The us'e' would be for overnight campers
as motor lodges. Mr. Wood, a; special permit had been
obtained for the festival from the City. Mr. Hall informed Ms.
-2-
Petaluma City _Planning Commission Minutes,., November 2., ,1976 .• _,,.
.Malcolm that.in f..,a•,req;uest was. made to the City for
the ,use, of :the:_campgr:ounds: for agatherng, the public would be
notified through a release and neighboring properties
could,.be notified.by mail of the pro.posed_.request... Ms. Malcolm
requested she;be notified of any. requests made .by K.O.A.. to
locate large: group . on -their prop
Oscar .Carter, Rainsville ,Road -,_s aced that-due to-traffic condi-
t 'ons. 'a - traffic signal i$,warranted,,.at .,the intersection of Stony
! Point ,:Road ,and 'P.et Blv:d,. North. .Mr .....Carter added that the
wide gravel turnaround of.f'iof Rainsvi.11e...Road is used by kids
spinning out onto Ransville Road;.camp.ers are.used by vaca-
tioneer"s -and =' are no;t.• used to speed. on roads. There is a blind
-curve on Rainsville Road and the speed limit.in this.area should
'be dropped to 35 MPH. There should"be more police patrol on
Rainsville, "'Road to curtail .spee;ding drivers. Mr. •Carter stated
lif .a signal :were installed :on;'S,tony: Point, ,and ..Petaluma Blvd,.
1. North. he ,saw - . , no :reason wh_y the K. facilities could not. be
expanded , 'The public hear ng.;was d1osed,.
Comm. :Horciza .stated that as there is a -traffic problem. in the
area .the K.O...A. camp ,, Negative could not
be ..pos;ted., .and. 'the r.ef ore-prop os,ed a: study be made of the
existing .traffic,, to _includ'e'ahe• traffic for the area.
Mr. Wood ,fated; 'the ;campgrounds• is .seas:onal :business and .there
are now ,approximately 25_ campers at = the site, and if K.O.A. is
• not permitted to construct Phase .II and IIL,.campers will still
approach their .park next- summer•._and;fiave'to be 'turned away for
lack, +of -space._- ,Mr Hall • s;tated.• a traffic problem now exists and
some type of .,mi;tigating` measures may have to be utilized to
alleviate 4the ' traffic '_.problem_.
Comm. ,Horciza •moved to continue the .prop.osal for: the . addition of
Phase-II and".III to -the K. &.A. .site,!unti:l`_a.:traffic study _of the
area had abeen :submitted by the -- ,a • Pplicant The motion was lost
for the lack of :a.se,cond.
'Comm. Head moved - a .traffic study of the area be made by the
Traffic Committee. The motion .was lost for the a second.
' `Comm. Wate•r-s , st'ated .:the ., may add the :.traf:fic during the
summer -, .months . but should not rightfully ,:affect ..,the traffic . He
added-'the traffic.problem in the area should be resolved.
Comm. Head.stat.ed the,rPlannng_ Commission .originally approved
Phase -:I tfor.• an '81 -space campsite and why K.O.A. -at -this time
not allowed to- continue their•proj.ect.. - Comm. -Read .added if
K..O.A. as not :allowed to expand their f,acilities,.travelers next
,summer •wil'l: be ~turned, .away, from .the. campgrounds. and tired drivers
•wi-ll: then 'be , turned - ;back; onto the freeways.
Comm >Hor:ciza ,moved: to continue ,the project until .. a - traffic study
had '..been made showing whether :mitigating measures. necessary
for the area: 'The' on was - seconded .by.. Comm. Waters.
AYES 3 NOES 1 ABSENT 3
-3-
Petaluma City Planning
The "motion vds•
AYES 47' NOES i: -ABStg-T
•
�-4-.
� Head'- -_�_��wj&ul:d,cast �`anjiaf f irm aeive.vote if a time
Co m m , . '
limit 66ii;1d".Ve' se't matter -'; considered by the
•
- omm
C' -'--.)`, '
Plah6lng' - - is - skon '
Mr-. - ii�-.ft'.to - j.ebpA.rdilze-.k:.O.A- with a traffic
tate(J It; uilja
Idr the. area= - a s*. round _has, the traffic
situation.. He a8-ked if, permission granted to start
c t 7 oft� ruic. tion of,, tt . he p roject Graf f a c,st, -dy . is furnishe at a
later. He City 1-iw,bii�l.d..:share in the expense
stiia could not share
of 'the traffi 31
s' a' monetary a ebat7y par- the traffic study
aiie 1 upers in co . njunc-
shb6ld'- 'th6:impdtt_.of proposediismmer cam
.
.. n' p 1:6 wi. th- ft- 6 S winter vacationers
t
CHARLES, R. STEPHENS
14r.,, _ "b.'r'14-fly dined tihe,:re�qii6s.t� R. Stephens to
WAREHOUSE. BUILDING=
loc'a'te ,a = bui lding-, -t.he.-..rfQ.rthwest,.,corner of _Szoft and
E. , ' EVALUATION;/
'_ n d .of two lots where a
gl e consists
-Holm Streets: " -Hd , x ld
SITE. DESIGN REVIEW:
one story ;rectangtilar ' :shap,ed,,wateho.us,e ,;WiI.1 be con-
structed having an area of 16,410 square.. eet.. -. He added, 20
spcel is -.dvailab:le.f or
'parking' spd!ces. are proposed:T . 'adequat.e, a
t urning of Qne..ientrahte to the site is
- and daii
i�&t'And if ive�erkrances.--.by- way,Qf Scott Street.
via Holm Street ,
'ci ^consider%�the Environmental
'81 opened t*
"Tfi�' . pub lie hear' wa e
e p
Impa:ft Quest
Mr., `S�tepfidns' stated the,;warehoude ��ould%,store tools and materials'.
%used'by - .g6n'e.tdi - )dbn i t,t . dct-ci;rs ;and ihe-would:..;use 4-,,I000 _.to.5,,000
- -of his. own equipment-%
square4eet.- of 4t- building "fior.isto,rage-,
There will b&h6 materials astbred in the warehouse.
The public hearing: wa's, closed.
* , c
C 6 m wa`t' mo-�ed' to dire &t �,th&,Planning �Director to -prepare. and
,- -14 , ega. _ .D6cldra�lon� e w
post a for.-the -.project. The,moti - n as
seconded by Comm. Horcizd
AY BS 4 NOES 0 'ABSENT 3
Comm. Horciza.,�quest ibned condition #5 of .the _st off' report on
whe'the r. - 10 .' or 31 - f eia:t abPVe'me�ant,s.e`a level Is correct Mr. Hall
should be' corrected to read- 31 :f eet.
`stayed the :staff report sh
Comm.- Horciza moved to,-approve the site d,esign.for the.prop.osed
`h - sdveri - condItJ .'of approvd
prbyect with' the as ,.recommended by
the"ztaf f 'and;: concur -red - with_ D Et sign
d
-Review Com miftee,* and thdu condit-I 45; be changed to read:
'The f inished - floor-'l - -le' 'dD the. -pvoposed building shall be
`-' - vel
ift'. ot� - k `f e:et -mdah sea -level,.,
The "motion vds•
AYES 47' NOES i: -ABStg-T
•
�-4-.
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes', 1976
' 0 J . W,, - MORETTI -E . I Q
EVALUATION & PREZON'ING
FROM COUNTY �A -B -5 • (1.5
ACRE MINIMUM) TO CITY
R -1 -6 , 500,.:
r1
U
Mr. - Hail explained that'a prezon ng appli cation. had. been received
from; i4ill•iam' Moretti° to. pre"zone 'approximately 4.7- acres located
on the west s de•of Mount . ain; , 'View- Avenue.near.Canyon Drive from
County A- 1 -B' =5, Agr cultdral�,and County R -R, 20,000, to City R -1-
6,500,. The applicant had submitted a prezoning.map which in-
clud'es.A.P. 4'19= 231 -09 of which the owner- did he
wanted this ..property pr" "ezoned or`..annexed... In order to have the
other 'parcels-pre zoried•and annexed; 'it is ne.cessary.that this
property be included,, otherwise this parcel would remain.in the
County a e ndi surrounded by city i.e., this property would
be 'an 1is land' wi thin 'the rezoned proper y. He added the proposed
R -1 -6;500 zoning was'not' in conformance with the General and
Environmental Design Plans for the area.
Mr. Hall stated a petition -had been received with 23 signatures .
protest.ing'the rezoning of the p•roperty..to R -1- 6,500. He added
that unless the applicant is prepared to- develop a major subdi-
vision, it is not likely to be an advantage to rezone the pro-
perty to R -1- 6,500, but suggested the property be rezoned to R - -1-
20,000•.and.in this respect the project would not be as costly as
a mayor subdivision.
Comm. Wright ques'tionedwhat happens to those residents who do
not wish to,annex to the City. Mr. Hall stated.an island would
be created wli ch-:makes for' a'.difficult.:si.tuat.ion, as far as
annexation ,is - concerned, if the included in the
prezoning.. Comm. Wright•,isked - parcel -could .remain out -
side' the city if the other properties were - annexed. Mr. Hall
stated that it would not likely be acceptable.
Comm. Wright-opened the public hearing•'to consider the Environ-
mental Impact-Questionnaire.
I, Comm. Horciza: stated property located the is gen-
erally designated' low due -the hillside terrain and
unavailability of sewerage.
Red Phillips, land surveyor -for' Mr'. Moretti, s.tated.the purpose
of prezoning.the property was so that two additional family homes
could be constructed the-grandmother site.; He added there
are presently •thr,ee on _the proper..t.y - to °which the .Moretti's
are desirous of adding` two' additional. homes.....He�.stated that if
�i the property.was rezoned to R -1- 20,000 there would not be suf-
ficient square footage -to construct two additional units.
Fred Davis of Mountain View Avenue expressed concern if the
applicant was granted a':re'z6ning•to -R -1 - 6,500 more two.units
could be built; and if - more home's-are permitted..to.be built on
Mountain 'View Avenue; this would generate more.people to the area
creating':schoo.1 -*and t'ra•ff'ic and add to the present water
and sewer problems.
•Jean'Moretti.stated family had lived in about 40
years -and they were requesting they_.be construct two
additional homes on their property:
-5-
Petaluma City Planning .Commission Mi- nutes;, �.Novembe . -2., 1,97;6:
Kathi B nford .:1290, Mountain -View ,Avenue,, stated, she .opposed the.:
R -1- 6,.50,0 .zoning, as ahe area, would' - be ',cluttered with - homes, :but
an R- 1- 20,000•izonin "g would.,meet with. hen sat !sfa'ction.. She ;added
she did nett want to .annex -her :property to the City.
Ralph -Carlson ; ,, 1225; Mountain View .Avenue ,stated, Mountain View
Estates property across the street :was ;z,oned :R -1 -6,500 rand he
preferred- smaller-• lots .bec ,of; the Tow maintenance.
Comm. Wright, .q,uestioned ;why the staff . is requesting one .side of
Mountain View :be, zoned R -.1- 20,,000 when Mountain View Estates
subdivision across .the ,,street .is zoned,R -1- 6,500
Comm. Waters stated Mountain View Estates; subdivision - complied
with the :EDP as the .lots Are .;zoned R- 1- :6,,,5.00 .and .the EDP had been
adopted before, the subdivision _was developed.
The public hearing was closed.
Comm. HorcIza,.moved to direct the Planning.Director to prepare
and post a - Negative Declaration with . -tle, ,condition that the
pr.ezoning for the proj ect be changed to °R -1 20.,000. The motion
was seconded. by - Comm Waters_.
AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT, 3
The public hearing was ,opened to consider the prezoning , of
approximately 4•.:7 : acres of land located : on •the west side of
Mountain View.Avenue near Ca Drive.
rive.
.Mr. Phillips stated the applicant planned on ;constructing. the
proposed two homes :some time ago,. • ,They .had applied to ;Sonoma
County for a lot split and faced a County ;R -R 20.,000 rezoning.
, Sonoma`Caunty,questioned why -the applicant had not obtained
approval :for the project from the City. of - Petaluma. He further
staged the project would be a five lot split, but because •of the
way the ,present homes are la &iou't, the 'proposed two homes can
not. be :constructed unless, - the ;property is zoned R- 1- 6,500.. Mr.
Phillips showed. the different ,lot-. lines, of. the parcels and
requested. the ',property be% zoned R -1 -6,500 in order that the
proposed two homes could, be +cons ; tructed'.. The public hearing was
closed.
Comm. Horc - if a, ';Planned Unit Development (PUD)
could apply under the proposed conditions.
Comm. Wright :asked if a PUII 'for the, parcel.. would be - feasible, -and
if the(property,is divided, would-a 20 -foot private driveway with
a turnaround bulb be..require& to provide access to the property.
Mr. Hall answered that a RUD was ;a possibility and requested the
matter be continued to Planning-Commission meeting of De-
cember 7 in order that the staff may determine i'f - .a.PUD would be
.feasible. for the•property.. Comm. .Horciza. stated.-that due to the
complexity of the project, ,.the matter should be handled step by
S�
C.
Petaluma City Planning Commission November,.2,, ,1976....
ld,.work•in,con ` unction.with the ..property
4' step ::; The staff :,shou J
owners.,so that s ome type of .agreement ,.could .be .reached,. whereby
ahe,.:Moretti's would: .be allowed to construct the proposed two
homes;
SONOMA JOE'S
RESTAURANT /SITE:
DESIGN REVIEW:
jx.
A brief discussion was held on 'the request by- Sonoma Joe's Res
t
aur;ant_fo_r a 800_;s:q..•ft. room and restroom
facility„ addition.
p the site design for the project
with
.thetfive of a pproval•as,.recommended by the staff
and-concurred with. the Architectural:,, &•:Site Design Review 11
Committee., . and that condition , il be amended to read:
#1. Rezoning of property from M -L to C -H be initiated by the
city:
The motion was - seconded by Comm Head.
AYES 4 NOES' 0 ABSENT. 3
JOE .LONG - E.L.Q.
EVALUATION /SITE
DESIGN REVIEW:
Mr.,Hall explained the request - of Joe L. Long :construct two
duplexes. on the northeast corner of Sixth and . "I'',' . Streets The
development includes .2 ,two - .story duplexes ,- containing.a total
' lo 6t area of� - 864 square - feet; - one '`covered parking space and
two exposed paved spaces:..are provded.for each dwelling unit.
One entrance:.to..the site is provided•by a.20 -foot driveway off of
"I.'.' • Street
The public hearing' relating to- the - Environmental Impact Question-
naire °.No;comments` were offered from the audience and
the public hearing was closed.
Comm. -Head moved to direct., the Planning to.prepare and
post .a Negative Declaration for the project.. The motion was
seconded•by.Comm. Horciza.
AYES. 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3
Comm'. Head stated the - applicant has the option.of using cobble -
stones. that they shall be reset true lihe grade where
.•necessa <ry;..but if the applicant preferred to construct anew curb
.,-and: these,should be :constructed'according to city standards.
Comm. Hor,ci`za 'moved' *to approve the site design with the...six con-
•. dtions of approval asp. agreed upon at the time-.of the' Architec-
tural &:Site_Design Review Commit tee. meet ing,.but that condition
14 should be;,changed 'n -.read #4. Cobblestones may b,e retained but reset to true line & grade
where necessary.-
The motion was seconded by Comm. Waters'.
AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3
-7-
Petaluma Community Development. Cominiss ont,, Nbvember 2' 1976
S &_ M` CONSTRUCTION=
Mr •' H_all explained; the' request' of Manuel `Pacheco to, amend+ con. -
REQUEST' AME.NDMENT..
diti•on, f the .Tentative, Mapr.;of - the- S' , &c IT_Subdivision4. located
TO- TENTATIVE MAP
on: Grant: in;. that.: :iriaximum grade;- on..pr v.ate. drives and
CONDITIOM-
driveways, be; ;l8 fns.t - ead� of 1'5%'::: Mr. , Pacheco..,fel't:_the grad = ng
necessaryw to- provi:d'e fo.r. x 151_:111aximum °.. gr.ad"e� would. be. excessive_
and. unwarranted; ins 'tls- .caste.,
Comma., Horc Iz i moved: tw retommendp to the.rGfty. Council, condition• #5"
of.` .the. 'Tentative ;Maps lie, amended` to= read;:'
A. maximum; oV ,18T. grade on`pr tvate, drives and`: driveways i& allowed',.
The motion. was; sec'ond"ed` by°. Comm-.. Head`.,
AYES 4 NOES- 0¢ ABSENT: 31
The: Comm ssion', unanimous - ly , voted; to- continue= the meeting; past, the
hour', of 1&:1 , 30" ,
COMMITTEE
Comm.. Wright. appointed?: the. foIlow,ing . GQmmiss toners -toj represent
REPRESENTATIVES ":'
the: Planning: Commi `son+ as Committee Representatives :;
,Si te. Design Committee : .Comm':. Rea& *, Wr ght'-
Cultural•, & Historical Pr.eservation ttee Comm.. Popp, -Bond.,
Subdt vis dn' Committee,:; Comm ' Wate -r&
The- Committee was appr_oved" by °unanimous: uote<.
ADJOURNMENT`:
There heing .,no} further 'bu'sTness , the: meeeting, was+ :adj ourned at