HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/20/1977I
`F I N' V T ' E' S
PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION pECE_MBER2_0; l
REGULARMEETING i> -_ 977..
CITY GOUNGIL CHAMB$R&, ,"CITY:;RHAGL' a rl PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
PRESENT: Comm. Balshaw,..Head, .-Lavin, Waite, WrgYit
:ABSENT Comm: Hor,c,za'^j .Shearer
i
STAFF), Ronald F. Hah,. P,lanriing: Director
APPROVAL_ OF. MINUTES': The :minutes, .of the meeting. ,of :December ,6' r,1977:;..were
approved,. as corrected. Page°4:, . Paragraph: 4 - 'add, Comm.
Wright, moved 'toi grant the, 2-foot- "front- yard > fence;.
setback.
CORRESPONDENCE: None
" CONSENTi CALENDAR.: I'a was thegeneral consensus -_that the. 'following items
y j be removed from, the Consent Calenda-r: ,. Lace -House •Linen
Supply;, !Inc. and Ch is;tensen.-.-e-Fos-ter.
:._1.USE •LINEN = 'Mr.. ""all explained the •regdeest by ;the Lace House Linen
$ Q • P,P Y` P P
. t'y
EVAL Zr:building,lo- "
UAT� tio,
UPPLY',�' INC'.=_E.I-. Su 1� for. 'a ro os;ed .add` �n ;tq •the:
��. DESIGN i'` , . 1.28. Libe'rt. , Streef : .. The site. -is being used as
ION/ SITE, cared � at •.
REVIEW• a linen cleaning ,busines's ,and the_ 'p,ro,posed, addition is.
to be used for the,:storage and loading,o.f linens. The
existing. development;' .includes the linen supply.buildin 'acce"ssor ' overhead.
g� Y d.
structures and a small; old two -,story home. A. letter 'Freceived ,from, the ;Chamber
of Commerce; dated' December 20,, 197'7,, was read which. :requested that the con- ..-,
dition 'to relocate the ;historic house be removed as a; condition of. Site -Design.
Dick Lie , of Lieb & Quaresma; representing the• Lace ,'House ^Linen _ Supp'ly,,
played .a, map showing 'the. architectural. -design,of: the .•b:u lding. He. indicated
that 'thek existing Magnolia - tree would- remain, b,tft,. that' ;thee house,:.was in. bad..
condifi,on and" the €loot was rotting 'away unddrneath.:• '.He. stated° that, numerous
up-pucces'sful attempts' --had' been made to. -°find, ,someone"•willing to move;' this house.,
'but to -no avail.. He did not want.- the house ,,advertised" ;in .;the .local•? paper" :as •-
this could -be .a,'wec-ome mat fo.r people• tovandalize the pro.p.erty, .;Mr-'. Liebe.
felt thel 45-day perio"d 'to relo:cate' the •ho'use had•-been':inet ;and .this' condition
should li'e removed.,, The Public' Hear-rig.was -`closed`: ;'>k_.•
Comma Lain,-stated 5thav 45-'days is 'a Fong `time,, but -some time, perhaps 5 'A
ay
should.:b,e designated. `Mr. Lieb. sta_ted''tha't 'a11...the-°'valuable: `%teams such as the
saaircas:e; stairwell -and light fixtures• have been, !spoken. for "j The 'build' ng. is
presently being ,used', to store linens:` Comm':Bal'shaw stated 'tha't -npu"t ad ;been
submitted from an accepted source` that' the' house liad' `li_een on the• .
market; `Comm..
Head, stated he did not 'hke to see .an old buildingto:rn down, �b,ut if no, .one in
the community'" wished t'o ,claim the .buFding, then` the, :applicant[. -,would' -be spin-
P
ning� his'. wheels in 'ad-ver't`ising' for `4,5 days Mr'. 'Hallr"atated thatf the .Chief
Building,Inspe- edr indicated i`t -would' be a' difficult job to move''tt e° building..
Petaluma City Planning'Commission Minutes, becembler,20, 1977
Conmi.,"','Read, -mo.Ved, to direct 'the ;Pla
nning Dlkectbtltoprepa:r& atiV6
Dec1a:,r,dti0n'for, the -project the; `finding thatAtem#4 of the
• . -:.t'-L., QiEvalua
.t1on-,was-h � iRng,eraValid•cohsfderat,ion; 'The, 'seconded -,by Comm.
,Wright.'
AYES 4 NOES 1 ABSENT 2
Comm. Head7=,�edt& approve-gn, 1. 'the Vit6: dsl _9-F the -proposed project with
. .. . I . - 7�lt 11 1 .
.conditions of- dp*proval'. as .recommended by'. -�_�Eh&'"istaffan,& :!:�oncurred.'.'with�bv the
Architectural & S'ite..Vesign;-ReView t ing chat ommilite e with'.the.f oll ow change:
De-l&t6,!;t6nd`it-ibTi, #5.
The' 'motion :was''t6eC'6`hdea'fby 'Comm. BAsliaw:
'AYES 4, NOES -1 ABSENT 2
.Comm.-Vright stated`-heyrelucfdntiy voted . aye to'.- approve the. -project* as" he
agreed with Comm. Lavin.
CHRISTENSEN'.,& 46ST`9R-, 'Mr. the-res,t by iChristenseft�,.& •Foster
L
i -lfofi's to the,C&lifo�rnia` Cooperative KA-.Q. -VVA'A1!tf6N-/ f d r proposea,�aite,at
e SITE DESIGNfit-V lk:, Creamery s t ructur' 's--lo'cated at-611 Western, Avenue.,
Ifiiprovemen`t's Ito fhe building...inc-lude. roofing and siding
alterations.. �,TFe design of the"exi tiiqg plant, b 1I d -irig is-,stich".that it-:4a-1 lows,
by. t6s,idien s. riving- on the� �ahut".
for noise b hi, gendtated y,mac machinery tp_be li�a t
ting', par,6e1. This, problem ;could -be, ',sdb'st_aiAialLy m1tig'ated, by the - ciompleitfon -
of an :ex sitihg -tclo-ndre''ie �b'16dk.wal-l- which. is ,partially constructed b6t4een the
two. p-arcel s,..
u 6 'd M -I�ip a The P'Aic -H aring,.,wals. lo�&ne`d ons Or -.�the!. Environmental c.t.. Quest ion-
naire.
Mr. Webb, 4,32,'Baket 8tt_eh-, tat e'd the ,applicant -should also cpmp,,1y,with, State
of California- and the - EPA k 're`g',' a 1, d t i 6 n s r le'la", t i n g
. ' -I leaks
*t o sLa-, et'7y—, p.r1-e'-c,,a-.-'It--
fons. against
gas eak&. A.gas' :meter' is Iocate ;next-to'his>,.fenCe, and: lie that
the e
meter ..be re,�udAk y or lea sMrsWdbb432 Baker- Stre&t, stated sh6 7 E�-,
would',T' and, tiot,,*.,,,'a�-,,"1-*-'--*"",d' fe _c p.Lqwo,E)_ n _e
Chr'1s'representing ., Creamery; -stated",,the: owner. a,greed, to -.pro_.
-tick: wall: 5 ' vlde'--�� `12' :f6t, h 6i A -'concrete' b"' -The 'compresso.r:-,is,�'bei.:ag;,moved �,to.
-,7
t�duce,. �Ra ing,w which w: e- 1ph,'Saftoft;
another-p�drf,,of* th&`�,�- h will thd-n-6*sk,
'd new •c 'h: -.w6u:ld,be-
Cdobeiati-ve Urbamdry,- 'stated d- omp'�essor. a , b e'en dtdered'� dnd,'
located in - die, c:dnt-idi part� of 'the new' plant;; about 75 ,feet; ,f r,bm,,t-,he Webb
resi&6n6e':', th'd :Tiiblit Hearing':,w*a.ss' 6'losed;:
the,, Cit-'ate the unsafe;^ a
y. s. -.a wo',td_d-�1.i1n-v-est-` -:,H��& d§kdd t f,
Cbmm;f
and: .noise Pve.1 s,. Mr..�-HL 8' tat`ed: bhAt:,the. ap:�.Topriate .Cit.-Y.,depat.t-mEints"•cotii'd'
check .into �t e" b 'd these' resh%' look 'e' made.. v. --t to p in-
s point ,�,,`thes�e , di,�§-(Y�tJe-pan-c"."i,,e's; 1,Liavin stated L -safe §!�f e., h6,uld,`be-
im`t6,p"ep�are iind-pbst �,uri�d. :CoMM 'Lai�id'MOVed","`,tO 7d r r -, r
" a N e gA-Ive Uet-laratiofi� f o'r`-,,Ihe pr_b i ecV.,; motion 'was-7-s'e'coftd:ed 'Wt Comm.
B'a:lhslaw..'.
AYES 5 NOES, '0, ABSENT- 9
-2-
P:et'aluJma City Planning Commission.Minutes, December 20, 1977
}
( Comm. :Head stated that wastewater from the operation, should;nat._b•e.,drained into
the storm d:rsn system. Mr.. -.Christensen,- stated that the arees required to be
planted along English !and Upham Str.ee'ts;would impair the. vision• :of -the' drivers
and create a. traffic hazard: ' Mr. Sartori, explained ,that the. Creamery had to
by the S.tat'e ,Depar.tment ,o.f P,.ublic Health. -regulations and, "they were -con-
abidecerriedthat .bird droppings from the trees which would ';coritaminate- ,the milk. He
suggested a .low ground :cover such.. as junipers' in' place ,-of . the trees. Comm.
Wright stated. he Piked trees and would rather, have the -trees than .the-, j uniper
bushes.,
Comm. Wright moved' to-. approve ',the: site design for' the pro•po.s'ed- p.roj ect with
conditions. of _ approval; ,as recommended, by the staff and, modified .by 'the Archi-
tectiiral & Site .D'esign Review Committee .with' the .fol,lowing. changes:
Condition #2 ,-. amended to..�readi: Landscaping .shall ,:be provided in. -areas speci-
fied on, Exhibit -Ain a manner deemed appropriate by the Planriing.Director.
Condition ��3: - changed, to read: The partially completed. concrete block wall -on
the tight side o,f the. plant, 'building, shall bey completed with • concrete block in
a manner deemed approp,riate.by the Chief _Building Inspector to`ade.quately
reduce •the soundc.emitted from;mac'hinery in the building.
Condition #7 - added•to read: The maximum -sound press;,ure level•radiated from
the: sub•`ject use shall,,be in accordance -with.,--the provisions of the City Per-for-
inarice. Standard's (Section '22-301) .
•fir Coed"itl `- n #8 - • All exis;tirig, and-•, future drainage design shall be made • to conform
with-Chlapter 70 of the'Uniform-Building Code.
The motiion was,..s'econded•by.Comm. Lavin.
;AYES 5 NOES'' 0 ABSENT 2
WAYNE &�,URSULA., Mr.; Hall explained the,request.by Wayne and Ursula
GARDINER,.VARIANCE Gardiner, for an,approximately'42'foot variance from the
REQUEST+: -required minimum front -.yard setback for. an addition to
the residence located -at
La Cres'ta Drive. Site
plans. _for, the. addition- were .originally ,submitted without the benefit of a
parcel -:survey. The plans indicated a. front yard -setback o.f :30 - feet . , The
p.roje- t, was -approved: on, March `8, •.1977, .and cons'tructi'on-began shortly there-
after`. Two --;parcel surveys;were:Iater,conducted f6rthe,sit:e. Both surveys
indicated that the front p`ro:perty line was -at the most. 4.5 feet short of the
required 18.-6 foot setback. Because of this inconsistency, the^,applicant was
required toeither, apply for a variance ..or, to xemove the -front portion of -the
addition. A` „parcel survey, coridue,ted'�for the site by John*Fitzgerald of,':Engi-.
neering'Freld.Services, establishes the. required minimum front..yard setback at
1.8.6 feet - The addition almost. completely blocks.'a- panoramic view of the City
that residents ,of, the �Ihome. to the left previously had, the,'6enefit of enjoying.
Howeverl; ;th'e: ;legally,s•i.tuated-..portion. of ..the addition: blocks: the. great maj ority
of the.''iew': Letter: received from Adolph•,Schroeder'-dated'December- 16; 1977, 'in
favor• of .the variance: Letter_ -received -from Anita 'Solomon,",.dated' December 16,
�r 1977, protesting var.iance,,reques,t; Letter.receiveUfrom Mr: Dungan, dated
-3-
Petaluma City Planning.Commission Minutes; December•'20,, 1977"
December ,19., 197.:7, disapproving of •variance:..' -Letter from:7r.ed' Matter; dated
December 20,,. 1977,:in opposition:to.,Gardin_er variance.
The .Public .,Hearing to consider the. Variance,, request, -was' .o.pened,. Walter Min'ogue.,
.2 Manor Way, •oppose4 -granting the variance;- ,in what it laff ices ;the view o'f' the
,,neighb_dring Iota, ., Brian McCarthy, .att'orhey .Tor•,Mrs; Brazil, :staye&'the,people •
in the, ,area- are.. -concerned, because -it is 'an importarit,,,'matter ,arid people •wil'l. be.
hurt. Thelar.chitect.missed the••setback.by 50%. ThisL was kn_own•by '-the apply-
cant; but ,no application for a variance �had;been.s.ubmitted,. If this building
is, allowed., to be..built.; it. wil1, completely block the-- view'o;f •`Mrs:Brazil . -.The
applicant received. several, violatioh. no'tice.s from the •City= to 1sto,p, the^. work;, .he
.
did not ,.stop work;..nor: did he -apply :for', avariance, It -is clear :that this
building, could have been built.•in ,the, rear of the property which would -al:low
Mrs..,Brazil. to 'at .'least, -salvage -some..of; the view' -by putting in a corner, window.
They could; have built . further .back and, still had the -same 'amount • of spate.* Ia
.is a very substantial detriment to the •.adj oiiiing neighbor,. Comm: Head 'asked if
they Brazil ,house•,was within the .req.0 re& setback,requirement:.- .Mr.:
stated;, ;the Brazil -house •is, located' further 'back:' By,. averaging `these houses,
You come. up{ :with a violation of 4.6 feet.., },
David Birenbaum, attorney for the Gard_-ner,s,.stated when'his client began, -the -
project -they. liad •no -ordinance or .rule for building .the ^structure,. The. c-&urt-
denied Mrs., Brazil's request for, a p.rel'iminary"._iriiunction.:- Therek'was• substan-
tial- 'building done before'his client was ,aware- that a variance -was; req.ured,:-`
They ,are asking - for a 4 z foot setback. To. remove • the present building would .be
.a substantial- expense to his.•client. He indicated' -that -'the s,&iback-�averag-ing".
should have been ,taken ,.on the same .block; fronting,-. the house yin, 'lieu-; of the:
�.
frontage of the corner property, around the•co;rne•r on Manor Way. Comm. Wright
stated that the Gardiners continued to build after being given -not' ce. 'Mr.. "
Blrenbaum stated the .work done •through June was substantial 'and ° f;,the work had
stopped at this time it would,, have,.cost>cons derable, money to remove ita:• A -
letter "had been .received from the,Bui.lding, Inspector stating they `may beAn
v olatio'ne The architect indicated' ,they -had '-ample footage. Th'ere•'h_as been no
attempt, to violate; any laws, or or-d'inances . , .: Comm:, Balshaw =asked wh tl numberswere
used••,to •establish the. setb'ack-,requirements.. Mr:. Lieb explained :the set; --
back. of the corner. house, :is .10 feet" fromt-the,.property line to the -wall of the
house, .a figure.given;by the Building Inspector.. 'Brazil''s, setback is from 18
_feet to, 20 feet .and. if an average , is taken . of 10 feet and.:20 ''feet, 'yo;u come' uP
with '15 feet. - Comm:.,.Wright, felt..that the City Attorney 'should •have* been
present . to ° interpret the, code• relating to setbacks m• He. ask`ed.how , the..- City,
Attorney •arrived at his. decision, ,and if th.e Cornmis,-sion ;had to abide� by, his:.,3 '4..-
decision. (No.te: -%Mr. Hall left the meeting to_.contaact.•°the-City.Attorney.) „.
Mr. E. ,Lar_de.,.5 'S`cenic,Way,.p-rotested-•the'.variance.on•the.gro.unds ;he. would.
like, the •:same thing 'happening to.:him,,, and, %l'ose his view. : Richa.rd, ,Anderson; ':'32
La CKeagta. `Drive, • favored,..t.he -.variance,' stating .,the view. being.-. -)
blocked •is- unfortunate,•, ,but the ;applicant •,should .not •benAenied the reasonable
use. -of _.his lot;, , ,Susan. Hall,? 24 La; Cr•.esta : Drive,, .favored. the_ •variance, stating
it is not, valid .to restrict;this.,family.dAd`the r- pr vilege: should:snot. be.,
denied. Richard,,Lieb zfavohed;•.the.,var .ante.,, stating 'the front yard is very
steep. :.;:The, j.ob •was done with the, benefit ;'of • a survey... Averaging is •a .very.
impo.r.tant issue:. This averaging should also be available.to'any one,who needa.
`
i;t. ;Some. of :the ',homes are 12, or 15 •-feet :from the ,edge =o:f .pavemerit:w This is.,
p.erhaps., no.t the only home on La Cres,t'a,that has had a variance, Comm. Wright
-4-
Petaluma 'City Planfiing,C - ommission_Min`utes,:. DecetVer�,,20,, -1,977,..
asked.1hy the cons tr6cit"n- couid, •-not, have been �dbn:e, to the
�1_ . 11 - __. I - � - - been done � - e .rear df-the ,home:
Mr. tieb, stated, it
"ortant-that the yeat,:rema-i` .as i. .is the,most level
spot foraplay aiea or the children. Lee BuftdesenJ1 Scenic W� y asked' if
'
F. her _p�q r ty c6iild,,,be pro"te'cted as, to. height. Comm 'a -she- . would be
. rpe Waite i t ee stated •.
protected o'n -building •he�igh�t but -the Zoning Ordinance.,�does not •address itself'
to protecting yie-ws4,.,. cpmml. stated the _;City is onky interested incomplete
complidnce,with the',Zoning Ordinance. The,.Public*Hd ax-ing was closed.,
Mrs. H411'informed. the ';66mmissidn that the City Attorney= could not be ----reached.
However', he assumgd-,thdt the ,City Attorney -had,ba'sed • his ruling on, the -ordi
hiince�,&flnition:&f front 16i 'lines, as follows- In "the. case •of an -interior
1 ot', a 'line separateing'",the '-. lot - ,from. ' the' stieet,-. .4nd, in the •Icase.,pf - a corner
lot aj.,'line-sep4ratirig th&,ngrrowest. lot 1fr'ontageof the.lot --from :the street.,
Comm Balshaw stated 'the La CrEistu',side should <be. used, and not. the Ma no r Way
side. Comm. Wright st,ated:--the frontage on the street l iri.qqestion should,be
used and not the• property aro,un:d.,"the cornert. Comm. 'Lavin stated La Cresta'is
,point I I we find thatLa Cres,ta,is the basis,
therightoi 't,from which. , If
n�'0. variance -is,,re4iiire*d;.` Comm..:. Ralshaw state:d the', Commission should make -
their ;findings 'and *forward, ,same' ,to the .city :Council
Comm. Head moved. to graht the. Variance. to, allow. for the: subj ect building- addi-
tion to be completed, in -its• - existing .location.based .on-the,four findings re-
quired by the Zoning., Ordinance'.. The motion was, seconded' 'by Comm. Wright.
AYES 5 NOES 0. ABSENT 2'
RICHARD HOEY-7E.I.Q. Mr.-Hall,exp'lained the -request -by —Richard Hoey to allow
EVALUATION/USE P]ERM'IT: for the instruction. of .'self defense -martial art classes
f-rom'a., single-family tesl dence located at .317 Eastwood
Drive.. He wished p.er-mission,to,,continue these classes. for-thetraining--of law
enforcement personnel and,, private citizens,: ' Over the pqpt 3'years, Mr. Hoey
h,as conducted_ self 7def ens,e -classes in, Kung-Fu,, Karate� and -other martial art -
d is c i: ers of 'the �,etaluma.. Po 'ice Department.- the CHP, the FB1, and
p in,e s t o, members -1
other individuals'-from..his,reside'Rtial garage.: The applicaift-conducts these.
classes between the hours -of 6::D0',p.m. and 8QO on Tuesday, Wednes.day and
Thursday of -each x4e.ek for approximately 15.indiyi'duals.each-•meeting night. A
total.Jof 28 members o'f, the Petaluma P61ic-e Department, and 20 'individuals are
participants.
Letter received from ElTer,'Collins', 216._Eas,twood,: Drive';. Aated •December. 19,
1977 recommending approval of,the Use Permit.
The,public�H_earing was opened,to IRV
consider the Environmental Impact'-Qu'estion-
nairb.. No comments --were,, offered,. from the .audience ;and the -Public Heating was
closed.
comm. W : right moved -to direct, the
e I PI . diinin g'.Dixector, to prepare and post a,.'Nega-
tive,Declaration, for'- the :pxoject. The motion was :seconded' by' --Comm. Bals .. haw.
AYES 5 NOES. 0 .ABSENT 2',
The Public. Hearing was opened to :consider the Use -,Permit.- Ge'orgp -Howard, 313
Eastwood Drive,., questione-d,,the,.l.egality, qf,,Kung-Fu, tlas.s'es.., , With a. rumpus room
in the,,, ,Pack, other.classes,such as painting and art,could-takle.,plate. The room
-5-
a
Petaluma City Planning CbMm11s'Sion**Mi*
nutes'. 'D'ece.r4te'r 201 _19 , 77,
was -origindliy co_nstru&tea -fo.r'a'rqmp . u . s room: om,e,neighb,&r objected' to' -park-
ing. 'Wright askElld if •he had, been b"othe.,.red,,by. cars -1n,'th& 'street...., Mr.'
Howard stated - there, has been no problem ,
,with'p.a'rkifig. -Hi,s, Aj,e't tion is`� the,
construction df the rumpus -tbom tand' its use: -for Ka:tate.-classes. .0omm. 'Blas haw
,said, it "understand-ing a, Use -Permit. is to control the use ";s'o that
4
one propert.�� cannot,..b'e a detriment to subject to,. a! "continued
a neig, , or,, and i§
review;.- A Use Permit, does set a precedence for, a. neighbForhood',., but it is not a
permanent :use. . comm: , Head -asked why Mr.. Howard felt 'the _iumpus,_ room would be
used 1-6r;-other p drp6ses,i Mr. 'Howard, stated, his wile-iddicated it might be..used
'for mar-,tidl art c-lasse&. Ann H'owara" 313 Eastwood,'Driv6 siatea_'sh`6 aid not
:obJett-to the en operation b�ut',,�4ou
present ld Al dc:t 'if it° mete - used.
§ed as a--s�-_hool-,
,ts A week'. JA, service'
tliree�,nlO Mrs. Howard added Mr..' a s
and 'this' 'fy pe- of service. should be ificoxpordted in -.'a school,prograa m nd. not .1*n.
• rieighbo.ilibod,. Theyrogram, has grown from' 6he, 'to three 'nights a week and has
• total of 48: participants. ' Robert Murphy, -Petaiumd 'Police.'Chief_ i "stated there
had been no complaints received by' the. Po'llce' Department.
Wright.Comm.. - ... -
if - this is an 'off1clal, or V,C�luntary pro. gram.. . Mr. MurP hy explained_". that .this is
a voluntary -program and'the' instructorship' is vol'tinta:ry,.'
Mr., . Hbe.y,.,,Appl-ic'-'a-'nt,*'s,tAted he has lived . at 317 Easw
. tood .',,Drive d eight. years, a
had: classes about I but 4 years ; ag - o His -,time. is . donate . d 'and ; his motive 'is n
to train law, :enforcement "officers,. -He 'expla:ined th �' dt martial art' is 2d- religion.
He has a blad . kbelit in, Judo a:nd.,Karate.His Judo, trainingwas tAken,rin Tokyo
and he 'ha:s taken Kung-Fu'fr.bm, chinese culture, for th . '&,'pasi '15 yeaf.s and -is
still taking -.lessons. -He' had,- an'tIcip4t ed 15 5 students at one .time; - but: geri-
erallv tliereare 18 or 9 students,.; He stated tha,t if the stdtew ould sanction.
his prog-_reo,, he, anticipated they would f urni"sh .,a place_ wher6. he 'could offer -V
these. sgr�vi'des-.' Debbie Guid:et,-, 312 Eas-twood'-Dr±ve,- e . . PolicService Aide, stated
,th6 program is very VeftefiL'Ual to officers f icers an -the fo-tce.,', There have been, no
problems, with parking, and no. complainta, have been received, about the, classes.
David S4illow,, who has, - been, with7- HoEiy-',:f or, over 3: yea.rs., stated' 1T6ey has donated'
his' time. unselfishly and during this -time he has not ,seen Hoe._y accept' any" .renumerZtIlon for his services. 'Ron .Heck, Gilt of the
-Y
classes:,' saw no.parkIng prbbleirs, The Public, Hearing tqas' c1 ed."
Comm"., `Head --stated he -',did not understa . nd" the intent -of' the Use,'P*er"mit for this
service. -;. Iff a, precedence� is which, a Use e_rmit is; req:ulred, T or groupactivities, then Use. Permits would haqe, to be is au e d. f o r -Boy- . Scb.uts -,and other
group., These-p.eo le are Hoey's-,guests and there should; beno
p . 1` .. ... I �4 1 11
restrictions -on h6V many " ople, are' to",
Pe his. - house, .
Comm. Wr-ight, 'moved to grant -the Use •Permit to,allow for the Instruction. of
martial art classes' with . condition's of -approval, as recommended bv, - sta , ff wlth'
the.' f o-11ow''inilg' addi tion'. Thd`,'"40-tion was •seconded'by Comm.., Lavin,.
Coridit.:Lbn, add. 7'The classes, shall 'be, limited to a.*maXimu-m of - 1_5� .students.
.
:k I.. . . . 11.
ROBIN PrGGbTT,--E-, I.'Q. Mr. Hall explained -the -request by Robin for, a
EVVALUATIOY/USEPERMIT/ proposed nursery day care center to.
prop r-Y ,allow :for a maximum
�,SITE DESIGN -REVIEW: of 14. children -to be located in an R-1-6,,,500 zoning
distr!'Ctat 13 , h 'Kc - Nbil-' avenue. The 'property3 is 6&
dir~®
'h a- sin'gi!a-"'
fe6t wl:dd�an&�, -lob �f it fAmi., y residential s u ur
�ep W ' tv'dt e;.- ',th"&
rear yard' is�'�"a'pproximately 50,'�er'e�t by "60 'feet,-.' The I& accessible f kom,
'Y - . .- 1-1. _e
South 'McDowell b,-Lvd,' Children will-Lbe, dropped- of-f at the center between th e
-6-
Petaluma City Planning. Commission 'Minutes, 'Decemb:er••20,,-1,977
• * "f
.1 "
.,..=- _.._.. '_.,.{..
ceilf 4,:00•and6QO;p:m Letter; from,.Essi.,Archart1326M;AveiiLie
rfromdated December;;19 1977,. oPPosiri the nurse'.ry da care' center:. 'Lete,
Vernon Webb, dated..Deceinber 20a, .1977, objecting ,to ,.granting; of Use Permit.
Letter "sfrom Lei and,:Mye�r;s,,,, 1311 "D" ,Street, representing, the Petaluma Inn, dated.
December. 19..; 19,77;,- protesting. use "of .,property as, a,�-iiurser"y day- care center. A
petition with: approxim_ately{24'siggatures, protesting: day'car-e center.
The Public Hearing was 'opened to, consider the.Environmenial Impact"Question-
naire. `Mary: Yenik,.. opposed. -the ,project. stating; .the traffic; would be increased
and' th"er;e would be too much'=noise ..from the children, ' A,:yard -used, continually
by- children would not, retain ,a •good appearance. A, resident on Rancho Way
stated the applicant curreritly'maintains an imma'culate,,,house :arid' there should
be no,tiraffic or,'rioise•problems from the;ce"nter. At,, I agle, 309 Coronado
Drive, ;opposing the center, stated with more :cars enteririg..and departing the,
center it would take more .time for the present.homeowners',to get onto McDowell,
Blvd.
Robin Piggott, applicant,; . s,tated' she had worked with, children for the .past six
years. She asked that she b:e.,g ven a, chance, to continue her business. The
landscaping on the property, would be maintained by `Mrs. ;Piggott. Basil. Scott,
1312:146Neil Avenue, in opposition,; stated the "basic problem would be„the added
t=raffic!intersectin,g',.and"c.rossirig McDowell. A pers'ori.•having a day .care, center
in her home is one thing:, but a pr vate-,, business in a, residential area is
anotherjissue. Herold Mahoney, Petaluma Inn,•:o,ppo,sed. the "proj,ect,; stating this
could, be- considered spo.t..zon.ing.,.wherein a business° would be permitted; in a
residential ' ,area. The, Petaluma Ihn •has ;had problems with vandalism. °There
would be: 6 to -8 rooms ,facing 'onto. the rear of this property. - 'Many of the
travelers sleep elate,, agd,urr.ive'during the early hours of ,the 'morning. A.
school_ o'f this nature would. be.:detrimental .to the, operation ..-6,f' ;the„ Petaluma
Inn. The Public .Hearing was. ,closed".
Comm. 'Ldvin moved 'to direct -the ,Planning Director .to ,p,repar.e -and post: a Nega-'
tiva Declaration for the project ..: Thee motion was, second'e'd by Comm. Head.
-AYES, . 5 NOES 0 ABSENT: 2,
The Public"Hearing was; "opened toconsider the Use 'Permit,. Mr. Mahoney stated,,
that,,the normalcheck .out time, for. the Petaluma- Inn,.,vias 'a -round ::uo,on, and under
certain circumstances; 1:,0'0:p..m. Richard' Piggott explained the outside play-..
time for the children was from 11:30.to 12 noon'. Mrs. Piggott stated 'that. the-.
average 'age of�'the children was ftom. :four ,to five years of age; the old'est..
woui&,be' third graders-, •.,eight :;and nine .ye,ar polds,. She:-fu-r"ther . explained that
they purchased• the .pro:pefty on ,McNeil Avenue. A'. res den'te on, Rancho Way ex-
pla ned,tha't there were day 'care and nursery schools located: in'�o.ther-- r,esi-
dential ^areas -in Ithe. .City. „He,rold Mahoney explai"ned-:"lthat the .day carecenter
iri,, the high , school°area adjoins. -the school", and .this pto.ject is °obvio.us'ly a .
bus;ines.s. ;The', distance.be"teween .the back-fence_":and the- Petaluma, Inn,.is,,,approxi-
mat'ely. 8 feet,, Mt.. Sco,t't asked i-f' ,the;-proje,c;t 'requ_i""red an enywironmental" impact
with,`the"additiorial•traffic on"McNeil and McDowell. Comm. Waite; -explained that
a, Negative. Declaratidn,,'had 'been. filed for the-.,proje(t -The Public Hearing was.
cllosed..
Ort::)'' Comm. Wright..'s,tated :th6-Iurea;,is ;tod. con -fined for -.this type of project; it is
riot . used"in conjunction -with a residence. He. -was: opposed t:b� the property being
-7-
Petaluma City Planning Commission Mi-nutees;;-Decemli"er'20,� 1977
vacant at,..ni lit :and.„in. the, -evening. ,'Comfti. Bats' g � 'haw . stated '.�f there ;are • a number.
of, these :b4piries-se-s, in residential ,neighbor-1 oo'ds:; he-was',not 'aware o. f it..
Comm. Lavin_: tate'd there is gne;in his, neighborhood, but- i;t •is a. res (de :aswell. He was,, n..favor- of .the center and b.,elieved` it two uld be' a good pro.j.eet',.:
He did not . see: any' risk ,in=,goiiig�. ahead with" 'the •Use Pe:rmif, and 'review-ing. -t at
a later, time. Mr,:' Hall explained that day care center-s with 'six or less
children are exempt. Itom City and -County `Zoning laws.
Comm.. Lavin % mov,e
center with coned to grant' the- Use P"ermit 'to allow foa r , nursery' 'day care
itio.ns;of approval:as,-recommended ;by staff with the following
change. _ The -motion was seconded by Coinin. Head„ .
Condit=ion 41 changed..t_o, read' �TheU, se' Per-_m t shall be -reviewed -by the Pl:an-
n n&.Commiss;ion, in .J'une,, 1978:
AYES 4 NOES; 1 ABSENT 2 .
It was ;`the.;consensus .to -continue_ the meeting -past, the "hour of, 10:3.0 p.iI. -
CREEKSIDE'•'QAKS Mr. Hall. _e,'xplained. the ,re`ques:t,.,by-1aw:rence-Jonas for
;SUBDIVISION:-('JONAS�. ;- modification t'o� SiIbdivision:Ordi:iiance . 1046 N. C.'S•. and
SUBDIVISION)-E:I.Q. approval of:the Tentative Zubdi:vision"Map for. a..1:0'-lot
EVALUATION TENTATIVE. res:ideri.t al subdivision to .be' lo.ca:t'ed. at -the; northwest,'
SUBDIVISION•,MAPi corner of""I'•' Street and --Su' ' yslope .Road The'prgperty
+. is,'approximately 7.:3 wares :inkarea. T-he•'development
consists "of -,_,ten lots"" of which; n•ixne" ,wo41'-d 'be•''about ,`10,00'O"'-square feet and one
lot ,loca'ted.'along Thompson' Creeks would be. over four acres. ' -Thee site is served
by access of;f S"unnyslope-Road- and • the nine .1'ots will' be provided access by .a
cul-de=sac street;. It is proposed to beta public s:treet-withn_ a 50-:foot
right=of-way;; without'!si'dewalks.
The•Public' Hearing was. opened'.to consider the Environmental' 'Impact. Question-
nair`e.• Larry; Jonas;, Applicant; •stated he, `had talked with the agencies involved.
Any substantial development would -have an, impact;' -but a: development.of this
s zeh• wo.uld,: not,:• The, creek • and slopes would - remain -'in their natural ,state,
Most •"of °.the ,p.ro,p'osed-lots' would be -1'0.,;000 square .feet.-. ` Lot' #10=wo.uld' become
one. a ' e.parc°els. It would','be, a: semi -rural `subdivis oft.' The Public Hearing
was.:closed,• •.
Comm Wright: moved' - to.'direct the' Planning Director to prepare Fand :post f a 'Mega-
tine Declaration, :for? the .projcect: The mot- on• was seconded: by -Co
mm. 'Lavin.
":.AYES, .5; NOESt- 0' '.ABSENT 2-
Mr;. J:onas;,,olije,cted, ,to the.;+_s .dewalk requirement'., 'Pro;spe'cti l buy:ers'; n'd' ed`
they :w6u1e,, not. like sidewalks .within the' sub'd vision: • ,He, showed • photos o.f
var ous_rsubdivisions� having 'curb'angtebut-no sidewalks..utre,es; would' be.
provided.:on --each.lo':t..and as designated by, the Public Works Superintendent:
Phil Br,entwood;,'.1008 Ph 11 ps. Avenue.; 'stated. -that :sidewalks would detract from
the aesthetics of the ro ert It is a very l:easin aesthet-ic; ualit and-
P- P Y• y P-- g� 4 Y
sidewalks„should .be, omiftted.: • Ha -"try Sackmeyer,; -a res-iden_t°,o•f .Westr,idge`Subd.i=
vision, would-- Like,, to' see'this:. aread-e-vel'oped in, this manner-.: '' .The; cities of
Petaluma City Planning Qommission.:.Minutes-, 'December 2,9,, 19-77
'V',Mouhtaifi View and Los. do not have's-iddwalks" and are ;beautiful;. Helen'
- I'.- ' of` - A do -; not, . I — � -.,.; ?.. i- , "" ' q I. T, - .. t,-' ..
King, :owner adjac1.en.t.,,pr91per-ty,, thia., was a fine ;plan: :� She. hoped -
that Jonas would _not . sell - the -,p . rpp6,fty-It-b"s,omeone,�e'1--se.to as' - she: be�-
lieves 4-has a good Prbp6sal; Mr. Jonas stated he,did .ii6t,.object-.>to,'-sidewalks
on Sunn-plope or any mdfor, :stre'et., .:He quoted Sect -ion 22-7.506,.'
3 of '..the, Subd'
17
vision.,Ordinance as -follows The Planning Commission may recommend- that' sido-
walks,b"e"' omitted in a, subdivision. or, section, thereof. in - which all.. -'lots 'have an
area of !one -'half acre or more-j, -or� in, a Planned -Cornmunity of Planned Unit
I pedestri I an' system, provided . that the - .
Development having an internal Planning
Commission shall find tha"'Cthei-,public safety is not `jeopardized by suc''fi`omission.
Comm. ' ' Lavin .questioned ,the'safety of the chil&ren:who, with
h-no,sidewalks, would
be walking in the.street. Kr,.,.J-oiids' explained that the openness and shortness
of the street provides for safety. Comm. Wright stated hewas-glad to see this
type of; project without 'standardized sidewalks. :Comm. Balshaw- stated
that'the bj housing allotment
�,remainder of,. the, property, 'Lot 10, is su Jett to, the
process ven though Jonas,:is-proposing.less ,than 10 units. ,Mr. Jonas -stated -he
is willing to go through.'the allotment -system for the remaining 7 lots.
Comm. Wright moved to recommend,approval�'of thejenta.t-ive Map foi: the Creekside
Oaks, Subdivision (Jonas, - Sub.divis ion)to'.'City ,the, Council ,with conditions of
'approval: -as -by.!e Riann-ing staff' and City Engineer with the follow-
ingthanes. ,And fdr't'her,,` that a covenant be recorded on Lot 10 that prior to.
any 'further subdivision thereof, or -ion. of more than..one prior t& c:onstru*ct
dwed"in thereon; -Atallined said develop-
mentI- g. er residential -allocations. 0
;pufsu,aA to' the .,keslderitial. Evaluation 'Control System -adopted by the City
of Petaiu'ma, as -.the same. -may now or,hereafter be:tamended. The motion was
seconded' by Comm. Lavin.
14
Condition #2 - amended toxead - A landscaping and irrigation plan for the
lAndscap,ed island lin Jonasllane.-must be,approved.
Condition #3 .- amended, to' read - The final subdivision -,map and improvement
plans shall show full street improvements for JiDnas..Lane,- excluding sidewalks.
AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT. 2
Comm.. Wright moved to reconimendapproval to the application of Lawrence Jonas.
for modificatidn of the, -ordv1sions, of Subdivision -Ordinance 41046 N.C.S. with
respect to thepu biic, ciA-de- ac:,street indicated. on the Tentative, Subdivision
Map for the Landsof.Jona-s,-whereby sidewalks on the,,cul de -sac street will be
eliminated.Themotion was, seconded 'by . Comm. Lav-1n.
,TS.UNRIS8 "SUBDIVISION
TENTATIVE ' MAP/PUD
REZONINGREQUEST:
AYES' 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2
It was the ,consensus .-that this item would-be continued
to, -the teetiing of January 4, 1978.t
-9- ,