HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/02/1967May 2, 19'67
Regular meeting o_fthe 'Petaluma City Planning Commission held
on May
• 19'67 at 7a 30 o'd'lbdk p..,m in the Council Chambers , City Hall, Petaluma.,
PRESENT�. Comm,, tanley,
omm., Battaglia, $ty'le.s
ABSENT,: Comm. Gatelwood 'Popp,.
STAFF: Robert k. Byrd, . Director of PIAnrying
,Gary Graham Planning Technit'
---lan
OTHER CITY - OFFICIALS , ..: Mayor Helen Putnam,,, Councilmen Joerger, Brainerd.
APPROVAL OF MINUTESt as the min for the meeting�s of April 18th &
1 were approved' submitted. s
SITE DESIGN The Commis -ion reviewed the site, plan for the addi-
REVIEW tion to Dr. Wm,., Lee: I,s office building, 1,29.X,eller-
DR. WM. LEE St., . kr Byrd stated, that the site was located with-
'in the and,, therefore, reqpired no
of"fstr,eet. parking. A motion, granting site desigm
review, was 'introduced by Comm. Styles, seconded by
Comm. B.attagIia, and passed.
SITE DESIGN The Commission rev the new warehouse proposed
REVIEW to be,constructed at,3293 Dynamic Street,, submitted
LEONARD CARROLL by 'Mr6 Leonard Carroll. The Planner presented a
favorable report and ro'commended approval of the
site de. with the following conditions,& recoma-
mendati6fts:
t The: bui lding must be moved forward on the lot
3, ft. to comply with, the rear yard setback re-
q141rement of '2_0 :ft-
2.. A 6 ft., high solid- ,redwood rustic fence shall
be. co , nstructed along the rear perty line as
:b
a uf f er between the nroposed l pro anduse and the
existing mobile home park..
�16; The single required parking space should be ori-1
ented to be more f
4. 'L.anftQape,- a 5 ft. wide frontage strip.,
�Mr. :C arroll was present and agreed to the -above :sta-
ted conditi.on.s.
REZONING Chairman StAftley the pub. li1c. hearing regarding
VON RAESFELD the application filed, by Ernp V.6ft - Rae*s1eld to re®
FILE zA"67 zone A,.'Po'. 18® 101-6th Street from an R-2,30 01 0
Zone or District- to a P-M (Pro fe s:s 1-Medical) Of-
f-ice District. In his report, the Planner stated
that the proposed' te,zon inq would, conform with, the.
General Plan project t, ,
' or the area, and, tha,t�N-,
P-M, District is generally compatible with 2 & '3 fami-
ly residential development,. Mr. Byrd further stated.
Pe'ta'l:uma City Planning
Comms;si:on Minutes 5/2,/67
thzit; the rezoning may be premat ^ire gin, relationship
to existing . residentia -1 land ruse but recommended 'app.
•'
proval of the rezoning if the neighborh is genera
ly favorable to the development at this time. The
following people spoke in opposition to the proposed
rezone nq o stating that. they had bought homes In the
area because of the high standard of residential de®
v elo,ptent and 1did no.t want to see the land use oha ng-
edo Aubrey S 600, "ID7" J Ed ward & Jane Pore,
609 ®6th® Cla BecT in,p . 515 "0"; Judy Murphy, 1027thm
At this time, Mr, Von R aesfdld stated that in view of
the opposition he would not ttHe matter further°
Howeve`r he stated that the proposed building would
have been an-assert to the - 'neighborho,o d rather than a
detriment, A action denying—the proposed rezoning,
wag J.r *roduced bV Comm. St�Fles, seconded by Comm,
Battaglia, and was d.en_iedsm
REZONING
Chairman .Stanley opened the public hearing regard -ing
WM. FOSTER,
the application filed b�, 'W" 1 :1 iars Foster to rez one A,o
FILE Z6 -67
Pe 6- 051 -11, and oortidhs of A.P. 6- 0:51 -15 & -1.6,
(83;0-842 Pet. Blvd, Nor th) from a C=-N Zone or Dis
t:r;ict to a C Zone or District. In his staff res-
port (made part o the permanent Nile) Mr Byrd ;st : a-
t. ed that the s�.te. bras 'Or' iginaIly zoned C ®H prior to
the C - zoning granted apgroximately 1 -1/2 -years ago®
(Mr . - Feaster wAs also the 'applicant at that time but
due 'to drat nacre ditf icu1ties it was n ot feasible to
develop, the site uilde' CN zoning). Mr. Byrd recom-
mended that, the request to rezone th e ar ea :back to
' C-H' be rj Vies, H-67,m re omzn: nd ng the; rezon,®
ing to the' Clty Couhcil, w a,s introduced by Comm. Bat -
taglia.,, - seconded by Co SFtyles' e and passed,
REZONING
Chairman Stanley opened the. public Bearing to consi
:SAN LUIS
der the applicat.udo failed by San Luis Properties' to
PROPERTI
rezon a 15 ;.yore pa;roel, b by worth McD owell Blvd...
FILE; Z5 ®67
East Washington Street,, and the U.S. 101 Freewray and .
being a, portion of "A.P* 7�3t0p,101, from an R- 1- 6,_00'0
Zone or District td_a.. CcC ('C omMunity Commercial,)
Zone. or District. A comprehensive staff report (made
, part of the permanent file:) was presented by the
P'l'anne listing both the. favorable and unfavorable
aspects of the proposed r ezoning. He Mr. Byr
con by that when current planhing is
not implemented to meet a community, need, an alternate
approach m b taken a1thoqg,h it may not constitute
p;� :anriing ,and reco�ne �y
i deal community nded aporoa,l o
ge
7.;11 ire e , o ':i'h ;..�1 o�po�A. Mien 8: Lo the 1Zjoposed'. .re—
zoning was voiced by Mr,, E. Rapoport, representing
the developers of the Pe,ta.l :uma Gard ns Subdivisi.on
He remi the Commi-ssion of a 9 were pa rce l '
they rezoned fort the: Petaluma Gardens Fdevelopers ays-
proximately one month ago from residential to N eigh -
o-2 - -�
do - 4
Petaluma City Planning
Commission Minutes 5/2/67
borhood. Commerci l (at the intersection of East
Washington & Ely�Boulevard'l Mr'® Rapoport stated
• that commitments for developing° this site have not
been forthcoming; pending the outcome of the rezonF-
ing : before- the. "Com.missiano, He further stated that
if the rezoning is granted,,, a re ev aluation of the
Petaluma Garden , commercial property would be ne
c essa r ym
Mrm Dan Mo C art hy, operator of drug store.occupy®
ing space in the Washington Square site, opposed
the rezoning on the basis that the population doe's
not warrant additional commercial zoning at this
time,, Mr'. Harold Cutler,, attorney for the Washing®
ton Square Shopping Center, pointed out that the
tenants , o.f `Wash:sngton Square• are only now realizing
a prof table, business environment and that his de-
velopers are. negptiating for several new stores,
etc Mr. Cutle also o pposed the rezoning because
of the additional traffic it would generate, At
this point Mr. Cutler in troduced Lloyd Thompson of
Milton Meyer and Company, rho indicated that his
firm had conducted `a survey of market conditions and
have been able: to convince several national type
stores to. take a good' look a the Petaluma area,
Mr,o Thompson reite rated that the firm had several
leases which should be ,finalized very soon
Mr Tom Gaffey, Petaluma realtor, questioned the
location and stated that shopping centers of this
type throughout `the nation have suffered drastica'i®
ly economically, and favored a good regional shop -.
piing' center.
Attorney Leroy Lounibo,s;, of the firm of Lounibos and
Lounib_os represented. the !applicants. It was hiss
opinion that the arguments presented by Mr., Cutler
were modivated by a fear- of'
competitiono Mr. Louni
bos' went on to state that traffic means business and
this will keep the money in Petaluma. Mr Tom Ryan.,
attorney for the deve`lope'r, :and former consultant.
for W. T. Grant Co. , outlined the plans: for the new
center., particularly: regarding the W. T6 Grant Coo
Mr', Ed Reed,, Mr. Vernon Johnson,,: and M,r. Lee Gorman,
, all spoke in favor of the rezoning' and stressed. the
need for better shopping fac.litie`s within the City
of Petaluma. Res, Z5 ®67, recommending the proposed
rezoning to the City Council,, was introduced by
Comm. Battaglia,. seconded by Comm,, Styles, and ",passed.
COUNCIL Mr. Byrd informed 'Commisisi.6n that the Counc re®
REFERRAL quested that the wording. "of Res, 6 - 67, Section 2, (re-
ZONING MOD. garding modifications to .the Zoning O rdy; be r eworded
to include the followings
3o
Petaluma City Planning
Commission Minutes 5/2/67
"If a structure on the adjoining property is lo-
cated closer than 5 ft., 'to the . pTope•ty line, no
openings shall be pertiitted in the additions to
the structpre& on the side located on the 3' ft.
5fi,devard setback.'" The. - C
-ommission agreed to this
modification,
ATTEST:
Cle-kk
- 4-