HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/04/1965May 4, 1965
r
Re 4u fi lar , meet in g of th e Pe ta l uma _f1ty Planning Co mmission held. on May 4,
'!',� g 0
City Hall, Petalu
a 7 '.zmbers,, ma�
i96 o k' ip In the' 11 Ch
5 "i" "3 0 ci 0`0
Ca.1 If o,rn I a,.
P RESENT , . C omm i ssioners Gans, Gat ew,o od,`RI.cha.rd s, Popp, Stanley.
T_ y
ST , F Robert E,. By rd,, Dire6tor of
George Miller, Assistant City Engineer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES _-*the __minutes for the meeting of April 20, 1965
were approved, as submftted.
CORRESPONDENCE
A
k )p
Sonoma Countv Re�ferral Re: Proposed Redrav Corporation Subd.
96
The Planner infdrm.ed the Commiss,io.h of received from the
Sonoma County P1ahning Commission relative to the proposed developm
me-At of the RedrAyCorooration for 'a subdivi sion on Bodega Avenue
between Thompson''Lahe and Lohfm�i Lane. Mr. . Byrd stated that he
ha
.d forwarded a letter s I
- r on . . a proposal to the Engineering Advi.,
sort' Committee informing them of several problems in relationship
toicity pol These comments were onn' a staff level only -sIncq
the City Plann_I_ng C6mmIs_s'_ion meet'aft"er the E,'A.C. Mr. Byrd fur-
ther stated that when '6n the tentative map is filed with the County
It'lwill be forwarded to the Commissi fo . r their review and cOm
meat,
Sonbma County Referral Res Use Permit filed by Edgar Potts,
prices, a major revision of the General Plan would be needed., . I
T
Mre Byrd informed;- ' "the Commission - of the U , se Permit application
flied'withAh6 06'unty by' Dean Potts allow an auto dis-
mantling and arts business to be 1o'cate,d At 4954 Lakeville
Highway, The- Pl,anfie�r presented a written report (made part of't'he
pe�'manent fil-e) ah`_d' gave a lengthy: oral, report. In essence,
the . Planner stated t ' that the proposed use violates the Petaluma
Area G6neral Plan,' It would tend to encourage commercial strip
deVelopment in this area, and'the use is not compatible with exists
Ind land uses. Mr was� in the 'dud'i-emc,e and briefly explalp�'O
th4 operation. 'He a4so stated that the-rle 1wa,sn't industrial land
available within a reasonable price range: within the industrial
area. Mr. Walter""Siladcl, a' resident of the area stated he ha
no !objection to"'the operation. Mr. Roach ' and Mr. Gregg;, also r.e-,
siding In the area, objected to the u stating it wasn"t comp4t ' 't,rr
ble with area. It'was moved by Comm. Stanley and seconded by
Comm. Richards and unanimously, that the County Planning"'
Commission reque;st-e�d to delay action f ; or two weeks so that the
Commission could check on the ava and price of industrial
land. Mr. Byrd questlohed the Co'mml,ssion,.. as to what kind of cri-
teria they would s-et , for a cut-off (regarding the price of
ind' The Planner further cautioned t16ned that If the Comm!
mission intends to base the General Plan and 'it's future on land
LEONARD LOT SPLIT, FILE 1065
The Cbmmllssion revier�ed the lot split request for 244 Be View
v/
Planning 'Conunission....Minutes
May -4., 1965
submitted' by Annie Christianson (rea.l.tor) for Leonard Carroll. -Mr.
Yfd'.-ores�ented a favorable staff report �(made part of the permanent
file) and recommended approval of the lot split wi'th the condition
that no e, ions
shall' be granted fo I r construction on the site.
Res. 10-65, approving the lot split as pres'ented, and with the con-
dition otitlined by the Planner was introduced by Comm. Stanley,
seconded I Iby Comm, Popp and passed unanfmous1y.,
JOHN KELLER, LOT SPLIT, 71R I& 732 KEOKUK STREET, FILE 11 -65
The Commi.ssion reviewed the, lot split map filed, by John Keller,
�1,ncludlng a minor variance in width for Parcel.'41). Mr. Byrd pre-
sented a (favorable staff report (made part of the permanent file) and
V recommend,e' d approval of same with the condition that the garage structure
which will, encroach upon Parcel #3 be removed to provide a 5 ft. rear
yard setback prior to the Issuance of a building permit for any con-
struction!on Parcel #3.. There were no objections voiced, whereupon
Res. 11-6 approving the lot split with the condition as stated by
the Planner, was introduced by Comm. Richards, seconded by Comm. Stan-
ley and passed unanimously.
COMMISSIONER STANLEY LEFT THE COUNCIL CHAMBER'S AT THIS TIME.
.MODIFICATJI'ON TO AGREEMENT FOR KAZEN SUBD. NO. 2
VI
The Commission reviewed the request filed by George Kazen to modify
the subdivision agreement., for Kazen Subdi No, 2. The subdivi-
sion. requ that I-o"'s 14,
15, and 16 . 'double frontage lots) be de-
veloped with their frunt_a�ge on Birch Court to avoid conflict with
traffic or the sharp r4d turn on Elm Drive. Mr. Kazen indicated
'that thist reauirement 13orks an unnecessary hardiship on the construction
of said '1111orin.es' and re.5t that the home be allowed to front or, Elm
Drive. The Planner read a r6no"t from the Assistant City Engineer
recommencing that One orl,g:irtal requirement as Tet In the su.bd1v1
lion aare°emient be uph.e,'id, In report, the Planner concurred with
Mr. Miile'.r's recommendation. Mr. Kazen was present and stated that
no tVaffLc-hazard would, be ic by this change and also envisioned
the problems that would be created 1'f. the homes. are to face on Birch
Court., The Commission agreed to the holding of a special meeting on
Friday, Ma 149 1965 at 11:00 a.m. to give their final decision. in
thid: Inter`im, the Commission requested the Assistant City Engineer and
the Planner to further study the request.
ROBERT WATSON, VARIANCE, -.F'11LE V13-65
The CommLssion reviewed the variance request filed by Robert Watson to
a1low a 1'0 ft. rear yard for a proposed home to be built on 4
Drive. Mr. Byrd presented a sketch to the Commis�sfon showing the odd-r
shaped lot which presents a problem for standard construction of an
n
average size home. Res. V13-65, approving the variance, was introdupe,,4
by Comm. Richards, seconded by Comm. Popp, and passed unanimously.
tkD J CY
OR N MENT.- there being no further business to come before the Com
t I s,s I on., the meeting was adjourned.
-2-