HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/20/1977�. N' U T'E .S
PETALUMA PLANNING'COMMISSION
REGULAR.MEETING �?; :,, �.' r {...., DEC 2 =0, ,19:77..
EMBER
„7 30 .:P M
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY ;`HALL' Y
PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA_
PRESENT Comm.. Balshaw,.Head,, Lavin,, Waite, Wright,
ABSENT: Comm: Horcza; Shearer
�. _.
f Ronald F. Hal'1,,. Planning; Director
STAFF:
APPROVAL OF. MINUTES: The':minut:es, .of the meeting of December �6; 19`77:, ; were
r.
approved as corrected. 'Page Paragraph, 4:, ; °add, Comm.
Wright mgvedto grant the 2- foot- "front- ya ° rd fence
? setback.
CORRESPONDENCE: None
• J
CONSENTiCALENDAR consen
I,t was the get sus .that the,foTlowng items
g _
j
be removed from. the Consent Calendar Lace House •Linen
Supply=, !Inc: and Christensen ; & Foster.
�.
LACE HOUSE.LINEN Mr Hall ex t request;, 'by the Lace 'Ho Linen
SUPP =_E.I Q, Supply f
EV or. a proposed ad'dtio,n : to �tteir :building to "
ALUATION- / SITE,
cared -at 128 Liberty Street The site -is being used as
DESIGN iREVIEW:
a linen cleaning ,bus neM3 .sand .the pronposed addition is,
existing de�elo went,
t be used-4or the,. storage and 'loading of linens. The
includes
P the linen supply building,, accessory .overhead
. er Fre
structure's and a small old two story home A lett'ceived from, the ,Chamber:
Of Commerce; dated" December 20, . 1977,, was read which ..requested that the con=
dition 'to relocate the ; lstor;ic house be removed ..as a, condition of Site .Design.
Dick Lie b of °Lieb & Quaresma, representz.ng the Lace House Linen ,Supp'ly d-
played a, map showing the architectural,- design s
of the building. He, indicated
that. the existing Magnolia tree would remain, but. that; ;the house in. bad-,,.
uccen and the --- loor'was rotting away underneath.• ,He stated° that, numerous,
unsuccessful, cond to isful attempts -;had been made to °find, someone ' wil -lin"
g to move this hou
but to n se:,
o avai=l., He did not w.ant.-the house advertised in the local paper as.
this could be ;a welcome mat ,people t o vandalize the property. Mr - -; . Lieb!'T
felt the. 45 -day period 'to reloccate'' douse ,had ; been inet ; and this;' condition
b.
should 'e removed The Public' Hearing was `closed':
Comm. Lavin stated 5that� "4'S day.§ is 'a long time, but so i
_ tme perhaps.., 5 days,
should be designated,. Mr. Lieb stated that all the. valuable: items such as the
staircase -, s,ta rwelI and light fixtures, have b "een fspoken,for. u The building:, is
presently being used' to store `linen's �' Co .Balshaw "stated 'that input ;had been
submitted' "from,?an accep source -that the house had been on C
;the market: omm
Head stated he did not like to'' °see . old buil'din" torn 'down .but if no, one in
the community wished to claim the building, then the applican- t,would b.spin-
ning his1 (wheels in advertising° for '45 day`s Mr Hall stated 'that;f the e Chief
Building, Inspector indicated it" would be a disfficul ob to move tth e building..
J'
Petaluma City Planning'Commission Minutes, becemb:er,20, 1977
Comm Head moved to direct the Planning Director to'prepare'andrpost a Negative
`
Declaration for the pr " oject with the finding that. Item 4i4 of the E I ^Q Evalua=
t ion was no - Tonger' a valid 'consid`e'ration. The mo Z YOn :was 's'econded : by
,
AYES ' 4 NOES ABSENT 2
N
Comm Head moVed''to approve the s`'te :•design `for ; the proposed project with
conditions of - approval.as .recommended 'by ,t &",staf,f and° 'oncurred, the
Ar.chi.tectural & Site • °Design %`Review 'Committee with, the . change: '
The' motion was seconded''by 'Comm. °Bals-haw.
'AYES 4, NOES - 1 ABSENT 2 . .
Comm. - Wright stated'.•he °reluctantly voted -aye to. approve the. project, as' he '
agreed with 'Comm. Lavin.„
CHRIS.TENStW 46STER`= `Mr. ?Hall `explained the request by lChristensen�r& Foster
E.I.Q. EVALAUTION'/ for proposed alterations to the Cal=ifornia Cooperative.
SITE ..DESIGN yREV.IEW; Creamery structures at. 611 Western, Avenue.,
Improvements to the'buildng include roofing and siding
, al`t :erat &'i s.. The ',design of °the exi sting plant building is,. such; -chat lit- lows
for noise generate' by , machinery t'o be `hear=d, by residents. living - on the abut .•
ting par;ceh.t This, problem :could _be stib'stantially mi- tigated,� by 'the .comple,tion
-
o -f an :existing coneret'e blo`ek �wa1 wfi ch' is ?,partially cons:tru`cted between the
two ,par.'cels',.:
The Pub'li`c - Hear "iri'g' was. °'opene'd S to ,cons d`er . the Environmental Impact :Ques.tion=
nar -e. ,..
Mr. Webb, :4'32 Baker Street, .stat the .,applicant •should also ,cgmply; with State'
of Californ d and; the EPA re'galat ons 'relating to safety precauf oi9s. against
gas ;leaks' ' •A• gas meter'- is located next to hiss fence;• and ,lie requested that the
meter :be checked r=egularly for leaks ''Mrs .Webbb;. 432 Baker <3iS reet�, stated she
would ike a brick' wall; and :not .a' plywood' fence',nstalled
Chr• 'is 'Chris;t`ensen,,.- representing the Cre°amery,, stated':,the. owner. agr.e'ed, to - .pro
vide a "'12'-f 66t 1 high concrete` brick wal-1 ry The compressor is �bei.ag; ;moved , -
another- -pfdrt•. of the bu l °ding will reduce • noise, level.. Ralph •�Saf tort,
Coo "peiati -ve C`re'amery,• 'stated' a -new comp'ressor. had,lbe'en ordered': dnd ",would.- :be - '
lo=cated in • the cedrbtral part of 'the new' plant-;, about. 75 feet; from the 'Webb
residence:^ '.The :Public .He'aring was closed:
Comm. asked if the, City °staff would nves the, unsafe gas ,condition.
and' noise ewels; ''; Mr ,;, Hfa11 `s i; -i d that the• appropriate .Cit=y ,departments "` coul'd'�"
check .into these`satter Comm Head asked +;that la fre'shS look be' made.: to pin .:
_.
point . -these discrepancies, - Comm: •4Laviri sta that safe. condi ions, should be .
r .
insure'd'•, Coirim. ''L =awin. irioved to direct the Planning Director; •to • pr'epare and post.
_
a "Negat; ve , b'eclaration for the pro�ec'f ": The, moti=on was s'econd'e - by Comm...
Ra`lsl "aw:
_
AYES 5 NOES, '0 ABSENT 2
T,etaluma City Planniiig Commission.NLinutes, December 2 1977
Comm. 'Head stated that' -wastewater: from the ope should ,4iot . into
the -.Christensen',- stated _t h e � rtr' � 9require(I'to be
. Z 11 -...e,e
plante& along English and Upham Streets would wimpair the visi'otr:of'
and create a traffic hazard: ' Mr. Sartori, explained that the. Creamery had to
'bepattment o, - f Public Health. regulations and "they con-
y the State abide b were
cerhed", that, bird d-toppings f r the ,trees which would ';toritamirf tes ,the -milk. He
suggested a low ground, cover - such; * as junipers' in' place ,-Pf . the tte-es. Comm.
Wrightl Istated. he liked trees and would rather have. the -trees th . an•.t he
b ushes
F
Comm. Wright moved` .t6.:approve*,t-he;-site design for? the propose d-pro'dct with
conditllons,. of 'a' ova Os�,-recomt&hded by the staff and., Archi-
pp-.r-_ y
tectural & Site Vesign Review, - Committee .with' `the
.Condition #2,-.. amended to = Landscaping shall ,:be provided in.-areas speci-
e d o Exhi bit-Ain a manner deemed appropriate by the Plani:i.ing.Director.
Condi-tibn.43,. changed, to r eAd.. 7- & pattially complet ed,concrete block wall-on
The
he t t side df , the p laftt,'� ilding, shall be, completed -with concrete block in
t U-1 I
a manner deemed by the Chief 'Building lnspe�qtor to adequately
reduce t he sound emitted from machinery in the building.
Condit #7 adde&tP read: The maximum-sound pressure,level•,radiate'd from
the.,,subject use shall,,be in accordance -with- -the pr of the City'Pertor-
mance, ' S1 , tandards (Sect-ion 22-301).
Condition #8 kli exIstxifi%g, afid-,future drainage design ,.shall be made -to conform
with - Chtap ter 70 1 of the Uniform Building Code.
The motion was... seconded - .by .Comm. Lavin.
AYES 5 NOES! 0 AB SENT 2
WAYNE
GARDINE
REQUEST
pl ans.
parcel
after
indicE
requii
requii
addl-tj
niaerir
18 f
tha . t il
of the.
f avor-
i977,
URSULA kt.t Hall explained the,, Wayne and Ursula
R-VARIANCE Gardiner, for- ian variance -from the
-required iminimum frorit.-'�yatd, . setback f6r addition to
'ta
the residence located,, La Cres -Drive. Site
Dr,. ;the addition- were originally - I submitted without the benefit, .-of a
survey-. the pl ans indicated a kront yard, Qf :30 - f eet. The
was -approved, on •qL77, and construction ._began shortly P there-
'*t-.
atcel surV� -.�the s i
- e; Both surveys
ad that the front property line was -at the most A. (aert, short of the
1 186 fo6t'setback. Because of this inconsistency; theapplicant.was
I to - 'apply, for a. variance .,Or, to •Xemove -the -front "POrItIbri of -the
a. , A survey, cbrid the site by John* F:Etjzglarald Q.f'.
feld, S,eryices, estiiblislies the, required minimum= front_yArd, setback at
t addition almost. additio almost. tomplebdl-
blo cks. a p anoramic view. . df -the C ity
sideftts &'f. the ��home. to the, left * previously hAd.'the,`be'neflt of �enjf`oyin'g.'
the, -le gally ,situated portion, of.the addition: blocks .: the g majority
Aw." Letter: received from Adolp l Schroeder' -dated 16 1977, 'in
,Schroede
E the variance: : Lettef'_received -from Anita Solomo.n December 16,
rotestin
,g, variance! L6tter.receive&'from Du*ngari, dated
Petaluma City Planning .Commission Minutes.' December 20,, 197,7
December 1971
disapproving of•variance Letter from',Fred Matteis dated
December 20,,. 1977, -in opposition : °to. Gardiner variance.
The Public . ,Hearing- to consider the, Var ance,,request -:was .o ;pened. Wa -lt ;er Minogue_,
2 Manor Way;, opposed !granting the variance;- .in what t affects' ;the view o'f the
neighboring 10 t Brian McCarthy,. ataorriey :,far :Mrs Brazil .`stayed the :people
in the, ,area- are..concern4 because -it is `an imp rkant ;'matter Rand' pecple•will. be
hurt. The: ar.chitect.mi:ss.ed the „ setback.by 50 %. ThisL was known-by the appli
cant, but no application for a variance •had ;been .submitted If this building
is allowed. to be. built:; it. .will completely block the-- °view o :f •;Mrs. <Brazi'l. -.The
applicant received: "several, violation. noaice:s -from the •City 'to (stop the °wo,rk ; .he
did not , .stop , work; .nor: did he - apply :for' a variance `It -i:§ -clear that �th.is
building:cou'ld have been bult•in ,the, rear of the property which would allow
Mrs. .•Brazil. to 'at least - sa�lvage the view putting in a corner window
They could; have b lt..f;ur;ther back-and, still had the 'same 'amount: o space., Ia
is a very substantial detriment to the..adjoining neighbor Comms Head 'asked if
the Brazil -house••was within the .T.equired se;tback r.ement: ,Mr.
;stated ;the r Brazil .house ;-is. located' f,urther'back':' B'y• averag-ing `these houses
you come. up with a violation of 4,.6 feet;.o }
David Birenbaum, attorney for the. Gardine'r,s,.stated when client; began - the
p'rojeot ,they: `had no - ordinance or .rule for building the str-uctiire The court
denied Mrs.. Brazil's request 'for- a prel'iminary",irHunct on: ;- Therek'was• subs ah-
tial "building .done before 'his client was ,aware that a variance -was: r.equ:red:
They are asking for a 42- foot setback. To remove the present building would be:
a substantial-expense to his.-client. - He „indicated' that -the setback�averag- ng:,
should have been ;taken ,:on the same :block. front -ing the house :in 'lieu; o:f the'
frontage' of the corner property, around-the on- Manor :Way. Comm. Wright
stated that the Gardiners continued to build after being given'notice. Mr..
Brenbaum stated the .work done through June ,was substantial and if ; ,the work had
stopped at this time it would, considerable money` to remove.>t- A
letter''had been .received from •the Inspector stating they `may be i.n'
vio ;lato "xi. The architect indicated' ;they- .had'' ample footage,: There• h_as been no
a;ttempt to violate any laws: o,r or-d'nances :Comm:. Balshaw =asked which numbers
were ;;used•,to - establish. the. setb'ack,requirements.. :Mr:. L eb explained, the set,
back,. of the corner. house ,is :10 feet from - the. property line to the. •wall of• the
house, ,a figure.givenby the Building Inspector.: Brazil''s setback is from l8
_feet to , 20 feet and_ if an average, is taken . of 10 feet and.:.20 _ fe'et, yo come' up
with 15 feet. ' Comm _Wright, felt,.that ,tlie City At',to.rney should •have* been
present .to. interpret ;the code• relating to setbacks ;e . He. asked .how t'he . City,,, '
Attorney arrived at his ,decision ,and if th.e Commis,"son :had to abide. by, his:.
decision. (Noted, -' Hall left the meeting to_, conta`ct.,°the-City'.Attorney.)
Mr. E L_arue,, 5 Sc,eni.c,Wa y otested_- the'- varirance oii •the .gro:unds ohe. would.
.p r
like. the• thing'happening to.;him, and- ,l'ose his view'. Richard,,Anderson'32.
'La Cresta,`Drive, favored t:he � anc6, -, stating the °=`fact of , ;the vlew-.'being; .) 1.
blocked •is .unfortunate, ,but. the ; applicant .shoul:d .not , be.•deriied the reasonable
use of : his lot: , ,Susan Hall,,: 24 La Cr ..Drive,,, ,favored the_ va-r- iance,. stating
it• is not valid xo. restrict; this. ;family arid'` their- -privilege: should. no't. be
, denied. Richard L eb z f,avpted , variance. ; , stati ng 'the front yard is" 'very
steep :The., j',ob •was_done „with the, benefit i'of• a• survey... Averaging is �.a'.verya
impo.r.tant issue:. Thi's averaging should also be..available,. to angoner who needs;
1 . 'Some of. -the :_homes are l.2 or 15 feet :from t'he ,edge =o:f .pavement,: This is;,
p,erhapsy not the only home on La Cres ;t'a, that has had a variance. Comm. Wright
-4-
N
Petalutia it �lacnfiiftg Decetboar - 1977,..
asked. why the construction, , couid' .-Ei, thave been d I one to the .- df • the home .
�_, �1_ - '[ - I - - n t ;been - 1 tear 1 1 � the -
M r. tieb, stated it 1 important'- that -the r, "remain, - i` - �aa ; 't is the
- , most -I evel'
' rea i
play area the - asked'if
spot for a jor c�ildten. _Lee Buftd'esen� J1, Sce nic
her -,property c611ld protected as t-o.hei.g4t. Comm- Waite stated -she would be
protect e 7building .�hei
d-,,-.o but -the ,Zoni.ng,Ordinance.,, not address itself
to protecting yiews, Comm. ."Head. stated the i& only interested incomplete
lete
complidnce the c kl
, Zoning Ordinance. The
'T _ar-_1-pgwap closed.
Mrs. H411'informed. ,the C .. ornmissibn that the City Attorneys could not ;be
However, he ; as's " u'me'd -tha't the , ,City Attorney -had •based his >ruling on :the -ord
- hiiilce�,definition _f ff' nt 161 'lines, as follows In'the,ease •of an interior
lot, a"iine s6paral'ing'" the' - 1 s' il d
l ,fr the s ..An the •Icqse.,pf - a corner
lot,, 'a ;line—,separating lotfr'onta'ge',of the.lot. --from the
Comm.. Balshaw stated, "the La . side should ' be. used, and not. the •Manor Way
side Comm. Wright st,atedz- frontage on the street i0,.qqe.& should , be
used and not the. property aro .the cornert. Comm . 'Lavin stated La Cresta' is
wh"
the 1.r1* b9fi t ;p oint • f rom w h measure,. • 1- 'f
� we find that La 'Cres,ta,,is the basis,
e" n s,,re Ul
t h no. variance Comm the' Commission should'.make -
i
their , f indings and *forward: same' lto the,. City :Couficil.-
Comm. Head moved . to g-r,aht the Variance. to, allow . f or the: subj ect building- addi-
tion to be completed, in -its existing, location based •on-�the four f indings re-
quire6 by the Zoning ,0 r dinancet,,, The motion was, seconde b C omm. y Wright.
AYES 5 NOES 0 - "SENT 2'
RICHARD H E-7 E. I. Mr. Hall e x p lained the -request
I O Y
by—Richard Hoey to allow
EVALUATION /USE P]ERM'IT: for the nstruction. of -'s defo:ns -martial art classes
from'A, single-faffi -esidence located at .317 Eastwood
Drive He wished permission, to continue these. classes for the training -of law
enforcement personnel and. private .0 . O ver th'e.pq 3'years, Mr. Hoey
has conducted self defense -classes ih -Karate and•other martial art-
n
d is c i ii es , Ae P ..RDepartment
,etalumaolice - the CHP, the FBI., and
, I ,
P i to, members . ol f
i
other �ndividuals residential garage. : The applicaiit-conducts these.
c between the hours of 6:1D0 and 8 9O on Tuesday, Wednes and
Thursday of each -wee 'k for': approximately- 15. individuals each-•meeting night. A
-
I -
t ot a 1 of 28 members o'f, the Petaluma Po'lic Departmerit%and 20 'individuals are
participants.
Letter received from Elter,'Collins',, 216._Eastwood,: Drlv.6,�.. dated •December 19,
1977 recommending approval of the Use Permit.
The,public Hearing was opened•to consider the Envlronmental Impact - Question
-
I re
nai No comments --were ,,of from the L.audience ,and the• ,.Pubiic was t
Comm. A
tive, D(
T Ful
Easiwo(
in the.
I right moved to direct,. the PlAnning'.Dixectbr to prepare and post a,,Nega-
claratiqn for, the Project The motion was iseconded*-by'--Comm. Balshaw.
AYES 5 NOES. 0 '.ABSE 2'
lic. Hearingwas opened to the' Use,Permit.- George -Howard, 313
d D•ive,., questioned , the ,.legality, pf,,Kung- I Fu, tlas.s'es • With a. rumpus room
back, other.classes. as painting and art The room
-5-
0
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes ;'Decembe'r 2;0, 19!7 Z`
was originally ,c t
onsructed -for a rumpus room The nez_ghbors objected to'•park- �' {
ing. Comm. 'Wright asked if ,he had• been b- othered by cars .,in - ' the street.:, Mr.,'
Howard stated there has -been no problem, with parking: no -, Hi , ob,je'c ion s'� the
construc.t•ion of the rumpus -room =and, its use. for Karate classes. Comm. Blashaw
said` it was�'la'i `undersaand ng that a Use Permit. is to' control the use-, that
s
one prop.e•rty cannot be- a detriment to a neighbor; and" is . subj ert to, a continued
review: A Us'e Permit, dose's , set a precedence for-, a. neighborhood♦, .but •:it is not a
permanent :use. Comm: Head asked why Mr. Howard felt the ..,rumpus' -room would 'b.e
used f "or•other purposes Mr. H oward, stated, his'wf`fe,.ind�icated it .might be:. use:d
for mar' art classes; Ann. Howard; 313 E'astwood�Drve, : .atated she• did no
obj ec,t- 'to the Resent . op'-0-rat-ion bit .would obi ec 'if .it° were, used, as a-.-school
three nights a week. Mrs. Howard added that Mr:.''Hoeg 'd'oing a'j'ob,. service
'
and 'this type of service. should be ificox.porated' in. 'a school, program' and' no`t in
a rieighbor'fiood•. The 'program has 'grown from, one to three - nights a week and has,
a-°total of 48: partic- ipanta. ' R "obexf Murphy, - Petaluma'Police. 'Chief ; )stated there
had been no complaints received by the. Police' Department. Comm. Wright asked'
if this is an off c' al or voluntary program.. Mr. Murphy expla ri_ed that `this is
a voluntary and the �instructorsh ., s 'volunta,ry.'
Mr., Hoey, 'applic'ant, stated he :has lived at 317' Eas�twood''4Dr ve, eight, years, and
had 'started. c =lasses about 4 years ago. His ,time: is 'donated.'and his motive 'is'
to train law;enfor,cement officers,. He - ex - plained ;that martial art' is A- religion.
He has' . a blaekbelt in Judo and •°Karate His Judo training was taken .:in Tokyo
and he `has taken Kung-Fu' from chinese culture, for th'e,'past '15 years , and -is
still taking; .lessons. -He' had-ant 1 15 �student_s : at one time, - but: gen
erally there , are 1 8 or 9 students.; He stated that if the state. �w.ould sanction. 1 1. his prog=ram, `he anticipated they would furnish ,.a place where he could offer '
these serriees',. Debbie Guide t, 312 Eastwood Police Service Aide, stated
the .program is very beneficial to officers •arid - the fo'r-ce._.', There have. no
problems, wi:'th parking, and no. complainta . have, been rece'ive ,abo,ut the classes..
David. Swallow., ` who .has••'been,,with'•Hoey',fo,r, over 3` years a'tated`'Hoey has donated
his' time. unselfishly and during this `time he has not , seen Hoey' accept" any"
renumerZt Ilon for his services. 'Ron Heck, G lr x Street, W ; part e#ant o -f the
classes:,' saw no• p;ar "king pro,bl,ems; The Public, Hea=ring w i eloa,ed."
Comm `Head , stated he. ?did no`t understand the intent - of' the Use 'P'e'rmit for this
s;erviee. . 'I'f' -a precedence is set' .'in which' a. Use °Permijt is required T group
activities, then Use. Permits .would have to be issiued for Boy S co,uts ;and other'
group aetivi:tes;.. These .peo are Hoey's ,guests and there should, be no
restrictions -on how' many people' are' `invited to' 'his - house,
Comm Wright., moved to grant ' Use Permit to allow for the instruction. of
t'he' addition. condition's of 'approval as recommended by sta ff wi `th'
martial art glasses with.con
.motion was s'e.cond'ed' by .Comm., Lavin,.
Condition, add. 7 'The classes. shall 'be' limited to a. :maximum of 15� students.
ROBIN PIGGOTT: E-, I.'Q,. Mr. Hall explained• .the request by. Robin Piggott for a
EVALUATION /USE PERMIT/ proposed nursery, day caste c enter to,allow.fok a maximum
SITE DESIGN, .'REVIEW: of 14. children • to, be located . in an 'R -1- ;6 zoning
district at 132'1 McNeil avenue. The is prapert.y '6p0'
feet wide and', 100 'feef'. dee°
h a :,91f ngle family' resdenti�al structure., 'the r~
p 'with
rear yard s� approximately 50 f`ee't by 60 feet.; The property is• acce'ssib`le frog,
South McDowell Blvd, Children will • .be dropped- of -f at the center between the' '
-6-
Petaluma. City Planning. Commission 'Minutes, ;Decemb:er 20,,, .19'.77
r hour`s of 4 00 "•and, 6,;00 •p.m Letter from Essie Archart:, 1326;. McNeil.Aveiitie,
.
dated, b, c ,19, "1977,. opposing t_he nurser { y. day. .. center L`et;ter from
Ver -non Webb, dated.'December "20 .1977, objecting to gr;an�ting of Use Permit.
Letter from Leland,;Mye- rs,, 1311 "D" S4treet, representing the Petaluma. Inn, dated
December 19,, 1977,.pxotes,tin'g: use "of. property as, a, day -care center., A
petition. with:approxima`tely ;24 signatures, protesting d'ay' care center.
The :Public Hearing was, 'opened to, consider the.Environmental Impact "Question
naire. '`Mary, Yenik,,. opposed. -the , project . stating, .the ' tra'ffcr would be, increased
and' there would be too much `noise from the children ' A :yard -used ; continually
by' children would ' "not r,e;tain 'a ' good appearance A, resident on Rancho Way
4 problems from thentains an mmacu l ate Eaglee 30.9 there. should
raffiP noise y ; center Coronado
be no t
stated the a licant cur.rentl mai
Drive, opposing the center, stated 'with more :cars- entering departing the,
center it would take amore time for the ,present .homeowners ,to get onto McDowell.
Blvd.
Robin Piggott, applicant,; stated' she had worked with children for the .past six
years. 'She asked �tha -t, 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: McNeil Avenue, in o;p,pos 'tion,; :stated the basic .problem would be„ the added
tra fic'intersectin,'g an _d'cr- ossing,McDowell. A persori•having a day care,
in her home is one "thing;, but :a private: ,business in a ;residential area is
anotherd ssue. Herold-Mahoney, Petaluma Inn, opposed the project, stating this
could be!- consdere_'d spo`t'..zoning,, :wherein a business would b °e permitted, in a
res dent al',area ; The Petaluon -f hh -ha s. h a d r
of -'Tre
proith vandalism. f'e
' ing erty. Many of the
would be 6 to 8 rooms fac
travelers sleep late, ; and,arr.ive' during the early hours of ,the 'morning'. A
school o'f this. nature wo ,detrimental to the , oper,ation- .,df';the Petaluma
In clo
n. The Public Hearin was,
g sed
". .
Comm Lavin moved to direct the Planning Director :to p,rep;a're •and post a Nega
tive. De,c'laraton'f;or the project ..: Thee motion was, second by Comm. Head.
AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT: 2, .
The Public "Hearing was, opened to consider the Use .:Permit. Mr. Mahoney stated_
that, _th'e normal' cheek, .out time fo:r the Petaluma Inn .;vial 'aro,und.:noon, and under
certain circumstances, 1:00:p.�m. Richard Piggott explained the outside play
time.- .f the children, was from 11:'30:to'12 noon ,'. :Mrs. Piggott stated that the-.
average age of� the children .4as from : four to five years of age the oldest
would �be' third' graders- ,.,eight ,and nine ,yeas g olds.,. She, - further . explained that
they" purchased. the ;pro:p;er,ty 'on, McNeil Avenue. A' resident�.bh� Rancho Way ex''
pia ned',that there were day care and nursery schools 'loca'ted .'in other- -resi --
dential ateas - in fle.City Herold' Mahoney explained. "'that he .day care center
in_ the high school °.:area adjoifis.-the school,. and this projecf is °obvious 'y a.
business. The', distance, the back- fence_" the,. Petaluma, Inn is
mately, 8 ;feet'.; Mr. Scott asked if'' „the proje,c 'req;ui'red' an environmental impact
with fhe additiorial•traffic :on "McNeil and McDowe.lL. Comm. Waite= ; exp'ldindd that
a Negative Declarat on'had been. filed for the project-:. -The Public Hearing was.
closed.. .
Comm. W,right stated the area too: con - fined.- f type o'f project; it is
not:used`'in conjunction- with,a residence. He. was .opposed t_o- the .prope,rty being
-7
Petaluma City Planning .Commission• M nu 'es;; - Decemli':er'2'0, 1 =977
vacant -at ni ht and im the, 'ev enin - Co mm Bals'
thesve busgnesses in residential ,ne haw stated ,i there are a. number,
of ,
g
stated there is one_ in his ghbortioo } ds', he .was no: t aware of it
i
Comm Lavin.,. - - :;neighborh'ood, t bu L is a. residence,: °as
well He was' in favor' of the center and b.,elieved- it would :be a good prod ect
He did' not ,'Pee. any risk in going . ahead- :with" 'the •Use Pe=rmia °and. review -ng I t at
a later time.. Mr::• Hall explained that 'day care - centers w h'sx'o'r less .
t .
children • are :exempa • f rom City and - County Zoning 'laws .
- Comm Lavin moved to grant the Use Permit to allow for a nursery'day 'care
centee. The r with conditions; of appr- bVal recomimended by staff` with the fallowing
ch an'- motion was seconded b. Comm Head
Condition X61 changed.,tq read" �The-•U se Permit shall `be - reviewed -by the Plan-
n%g;- Commission in .,June,, 1978:
AYES 4 NOES: 1 ABSENT 2 .
I;t `was ;the_ :cons ens us .to continue the meeting -past the fiou -r of 10::30 p.m. _
q ,. , y
b e
CREEKSIDE OAKS Mr. Hall e,'x p la_ined the re uest•, Lawrence
-Jonas for
SUBDIVISION (JONAS.: modification to! Subdivis,ion Ordinance .41046 N. G.S. and
SUBDIVISION) E' I Q. approval of :th'e Tentative •Subdivision Map for. a 10:-'lot
EVALUATION /TENTATIVE residential subdivision to be located at =the; northwest '
SUBDIVISION MAP: corner of ''I'•' Street and ',Sunnyslope:Road , The' property
• is approximately 7. -3' acres i' �a�rea. The 'development:
consists "of ten lots of whichi nine would be• 'about ,'10,000 square feet and one
lot ,loca'ted along Thompson Creek would ;be over four acres =The site• is served
_
by access off ,Sunnyslope.. Road- and • the nine . lots will be provided' access by .a
cul -de- ac street;,. It is proposed to be a public street - within a-50-
right:,of- way.;; without sidewalks.
The Public Hearing was opened ,to eonside•r the Environmental` mpatt Question-
ndi e.• Larry Jonas ap.plicant;:stated he had talked with the agencies involved.
Any substantial development would • an impact;,` -:but a: development of this
sizetv would not;'• The creek • and slopes Vould • remain in their, natural state-. '
MosV of °.th'e ,proposed lo,t ;s would be T0.,;000 s,q:uare ;feet:. ` Lot " 4410=wo.ula become
_.
one. acre- pa'rc °els. It would 'be; a: semi - •rural aubdivision,. The Public Hear%_ '
was.:close'd c
Comm Wr.• , ght moved' •to direct the P'lannin'g Di- rector to prepare s and, post - a Nega'=
tive Declaration f`or <the_ project. The motion was seconded by Comm.,'L'_avin.`
NOES- 0• AB`SENT,. 2
Mr ,,ob.iecte& to t e 4!s idewalk requ remenf.,. .Prospe'cti e.; buyers ;in'dicat
the ed`
y Jonas; would ! no.t: like sidewalks .w -thin the' subdivision. He, showed'. photos o:f
various_ - ,subdivisions! having 'curb and gutters, lbui, -no •sidewalks;. ,-- ,esy would' 'be.
g.
provded::on each lo' and as d:esi na;ted by th;e Public Works :Superintendent.
Phil Brentwood; 1 Phillips: Avenue, - -st ed'•tthat• sidewalks would detract from
the aesthetics' o`f the property. It is a very pleasing, aesthetic quality and.
sidewalks,, ,shouldtbe;omiftted,' Harry Sackmeyer,; a `resident of:.Westr.idge '
vision„ would like;, to' see- this:. area. deuel'oped in, this manner The, cities' of
Petaluma City Planning Commission. .Minutes, December 2' : Q,; 1977 ,
� '..Mountai i View and Los Al -tos do- not `have:aidewalks" ;and are beautiful Helen'
King, owner = o'f °:the, adj;acen•t property, stated . this was. a fine ,plai.:' She hoped-
that Jonas would not • sell - the -.pro,pe:rtyw to' .someone.�else to `'develop as she be
l eves h:e has a good proposal; Mr. Jonas stated. he not to,'
on Sunnys'lope or any major street: He quo`ted Sect -ion 22 7:50:6,.3 of the; Sub,d
vision Ordinance as follows - Tle.Planning Commission may.recommend that's de
b
walks b'e omitted in a subdivision.or section thereof in' which all.=lots` have an
area of !one -ha-lf acre or more -; -or• in , a Planned - Community of Planned Unit,
Development having an internal pedestrian system, `provided that, the Planning
Commission shall `find that the' pubi c safety is not •jeo by such' omission.
Comm. Lavin. :questioned the'safety, -:of the child•renwho, with-no :sidewalks, would
be walking in the•street. Mr.. Jonas " explained that the ;opennes,s and shortness
of the street provides for safety. Comm. Wright stated he was -glad to see this
type of project proposed, without standardized sidewalks. Comm. Balshaw stated
that 'the f remainder of the property, Lo't 10, is subj <ect to the housing allotment
process`4even though Jonas proposing less than 1:0 units. Mr. Jonas-stated-he
s is willing to go through .''the allotment • systein for . the remaining 7 lots.
Comm. Wright moved.. to recommend- , approval ''of the Tentative Map f,or the Creekside
Oaks, Subdivision (Jonas Subdivision) to'.the,'Cty Council with conditions of
approval_as_r.ecommended 'by the Plannng staff' and City Engineer with the follow-
ing <.= chan!ges. And further; that a covenant be recorded on Lot 10 that prior to
..., _
any, fur
Cher subdivision thereof, or_prior to construct on. of more than..one .
dwelling thereon; residential- allocations . shall`b - e obtained for said develop-
ment'pursuant to the Res de ntial.Evaluation 'Control System•adopte'd by the City
-�-'= of Petahuina, as the same :may now or hereafter be amended: The .motion was
seconded-by Comm. Lavin.' .
Condition #2 - amended to read. 'landscaping, and irrigation plan for the
landscaped island in Jonas Lane. must be approved.
Condition #3 •- am e d e d 6 read - The final subdivision - .,,map and improvement
plans shall -show full street improvements for Jonas.Lane, excluding sidewalks.
AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT. 2
Comm., Wright 'moved to recommend approval to the application of Lawrence Jonas..
for modification o'f; tt prow s o,ns, of Subdivision = Ordinance - ��1046 'N.C.S. with
respect : to the cul- de- sac.; on the Tentative Subdivision
_ Map for the Lands •of•Jonas-whereby sidewalks on the• cul-de -sac street will be
eliminated. .The'motion; was seco:nded'by.Gomm. Lavin.
AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2
TS.UNRIS8'SUBDIVISION It was the consensus--that this item would tie continued
TENTATIVE MAP /PUD to, -the meeting of January. 4, 1978.
REZONINGREQUEST:
..fi
-9-
,