Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/07/1968May 7, 1%68' Regular meeting of the Petaluma City Planning Commission held on May 1, 1968' at- 8:00 o'clock 'p.m. in the Council, Chambers, City Hall, Petaluma,, California- PRESENT: Comm,. Battaglia, Koenitzer, Perry, Styles, Fostmeier. ABSENT: None. STAFF':, WilliiaM McGivern Director of Planning. Joe gado,sevic, Planning Techni.cia Hal Wood, Assistant; City Engineer" APRIL The - minutes .for the Mee -ing of April 16, 1968, were 16, "68 approved 'as -submitted. MINUTES JOHNSON Chairman ,Fostmeier.opened the public hearing to consider REZONING the - r-&zoning - applIcation filed- by Norman Johnson. to re- FILE Z4-68 zone two parcels of. land,, totaling` Appr6ximately 7-1/2 acres, - lb on the- easterly side Of the Freeway and on the 'northerly side of tindberg,,La-ne. (A_ P Nos. 7­;471-65 & 7-411-,04) from an R-1� 6,00,0 Zone or District to -an R-M-150:0 Zone or Di,s,tr.ic,t,. In the staff, report, made part of _,th6 permanent records, - , M. recom- mended McGivern. reom- mended denial of the rezoning -, Iiistihg seven reasons why the rezo.Aing should not be allowed:. Some of the more important reasons being the proposed rezoning would not conform to the.Ge Pla- and the present utilities, streets, schools, etc.., would not be adeqq4te to provide for the proposed higher density. . The applicant, Mr. NormanJohnson, informed the Commission that no definite plans had been. formulated at this. time for the type of multiple units contemplated, other than two ten- tative p - labs for the site. Mr., Fall, Real Es tate 'Broker, speaking in behalf' of the applicant, informed the Commis - son it, would' not be economically feasible to develop a parcel of land that size 'with single family units,, par- ticu'larly in this: area which is bounded by 'If-he Freeway Mr. Fallfurther stated there was a considerable drainage problem involving a considerable sum of money for. in- stallation by the applicant. Mr. johns.on further stated he participated in financing a no,-joint concrete pipe in the '&r0a and concurre withMr. Fall, that the sma 111—_ , acreage involved would not take it feasible for single fami1y development. 'Mr. William Mathews., a resident on Lindberg Lane., presented a pe; tition ta the CoTnmis containing the sIgha of' Approximately Mr. rosin living , in� the� area,, opposing the riazonin-T. 'Mathews 2- Planning Commission May 7,, 1968 JOHNSON stated that children. residing withl.n' the proposed REZONING multiple dwelling unit's would add more stress on the FILE Z4-68 schoo'ls and the traffic', situation would, Also increase. (CONTINUED) Mr. Mathews, further stated,' Kres ' X-y and :Lindberg Lanes could not handle the traffic Which would be generated from the additional dwe1l'ing, units. Mr. McGiveth informed the �Com_missibn that correspondence .had been received from Mr. & Mts'.. Anthounis'se 620 St. Francis. - ;Drive, Opposing the T re,zonin Mr. Tom Vail - asked whether the proposed rezoning would have an effect on taXels. Mr. MdGivern said, the area to be rezoned 'would be affected 'rather than the. s 'family homes in the vicinity.. However, the rezori-ing could set a precedent for the area , wi't'h higher ,land uses and down-grade the initial single family zoning.. Answering Comm. Koenitzer's question regarding the street width of :Kresky and Lind- berg,, Mr,. McGiverni indicated these streets were not designed for; c-ollect6-r streets.. Comm.. Battaglia, was of the opinion that the Commission could not rezone in ordet to benefit the economics of.:tlTe developer. Res Z4-68, .rejecting the rezoning, Was introduced by Comm. Battaglia, seconded- by Comm Koenitzer,- and Was rejected by' the f 611.owing vote: Ayes- Battaglia,,Koenitzer, Styles, Fostmeier. Noes: Perry. CAMILLO Chairman Fostmeierop6he(! the pdblic.hearing to consider USE the use permit filed by.Frank Camillo to allow a home PERMIT occupation, a Hobby-Fix1t Shop ',(repair of dental equip- FILE U12-68 me in an R-1-3-000 Zone or District, l'ocated at 62, 8 & 630 Baker Street., In the ,staff made part of the permanent file, Mr. _McG I iver.n stated two parcels in the ownership of Mr. Cam ' i - Up 'are th.e, pro-posed site of the home ocdupation_� The home oacup_at,ion would` be con- ducted within the accessory .structure on one of the two ' lot's. There were no obje voiced. Res. U12-6:8, grand. -ng' the use p'ermit.,, with the conditions as outlined in the Planning Dir_ectb±'Is report made, part of theper- maneAt file, Was :introduced by Comm. Styles, seconded usly. by Comm. Perry, and passed, unanimously. FINLAY Chairman Fostmel.e-r opened the public hearing to consider USE PERMIT the use permit app�.Iication' filed by: Alan W. Finlay, to FILE U13-68 conduct: a f lea market in, the M­�L Zone - located at 5155 Peta:luma,Blvd. North,, between the Freeway and Stony Point Road'. tSite of: the Parkway Drive ,In Theater'), Planning Commission May, 7, 1.968 F'INLAY 'Mr. McGivern presented the staff r'Oport in which he USE PERMIT recommended approval of the use er t 'e'pm subject to four FILE U13 -68.. conditions. (Said report is par t;of the permanent file.) (CONTINUED) Mr. Ronald K.. Freston. attorney for Mr. F inlay, was present and;..'voi.,ce:d opposition, to Item . #3 of the Use . Permit conditions which states, "The access road from . gel sal,l be fully paved 'Denman Road to 'the subj ect par li with 20 feet; of° asphalt concr'e a at least, two inches in thickne'ss "''. Mr. Preston, stated his client was negotiating With. the adlbining land owner for the .Tease of three acres, and one', condition of the leas - e required the paving of the .access road to the sites. If., however, the lease does not culminate, funds derived from the flea market, (if the, use is .granted) , would `make it possible for Mr. Fin- lay to comply with the access road requirements. within six in fact, it is very possible the road would be constructed ',before the 'end of June if the flea market use ,permit i�s grunted. A motion,,; approving the, us.e per - mit with the conditions asp outlined in the-Planning `Director'" s 'report, with the. condition that the access road -outlined in, Item #3 be, constructed within 6 months from, date of, issuance of the use permit, was passed by the following vote: Ayes- Bat Koenitzer, Fostmeier;; Noes: Per.ry o GULF OIL The.- Pla`nnl_ ng Director- requested the Commission to carry CORP. over the Consideration of the :Gulf' Oil Use Permit for FhLE U10 -68 a period of thirty days, in view of the Councils policy to defer any existimg or new uses being introduced into. the downtown core area :un.til such 't'me:a_ positive plan or -mplementation' has been approved by them,. The Planning Commission continued the hearing a'nd calendared,the matter. for the reg =ular Planning C;omm meeting of June 18, 1968 .• LEISURE LAKE Mr. Mcc vern -recommended that these items be continued MOBILE PARK until s'Lich time as information has been received from Sonoma County Flood Control regarding the alignment of DENMAN; RD . the f lood, control channel which is ad,j °scent to Denman ABANDON- 'Road and, information, from the County Road Department MENT X610:tive 'ta certain :improvements that they have: i'n this 'particular area. The applicant, Mr. John G'eorgedes., requested . the Planni.ng.Commisao,.n to take action on the Leisure Lake Mobile Park at this `time. Mr. McOivern :informed' Mr,. G'eorgedes tha °t the abandonment of` Denman Road. has °a definite ;impact on 'the ,Le Develop- merit from which "the development- will receive i:ts access,; therefore, both items should be, cons simultaneously. -4-! Planning Commission May 7, 1968 LEISURE LAKE Mr, Larry B s on behalf of Mt. Geargedes and MOBILE PAR 1 K indioated' that whether or not Denman Road is a USE would have, no .:effect on 'the development of the park.. DENMAN RD. Chairman Fo!Eftmeier responded that t'he abandonment of, ABANDON- Denman Road will directlyeffiect the Flood Control MENT Dist and the proposed dike adja to the develop- m This acc,ess road. to' the mobile park and the dike is definitely going to have some contr ol ling aspects of the flood control in this area,. M . r. F 0 st- .meier continued, say, it has, gone. 'beyond the realm of the Planning Comm - ission to act until the 'necessary in- ' formation ii-S, obtained from., the Sonoma Co unty Flood Contro, 1 District and County Road Department. The mat-ter was continued by the P'la-nn:ing until further information is received by the Staff. ALLEN. Chairman'Fostmeier: opened the public hearing to consider STACK the u;se permit application;- fil -ed,by Allen Stack to allow USE the, buying of disabled car's and. trucks l for scrap, and P the , sale of used parts in an, M =L (Limited 'Industrial) U Zone located at. 81,5 Wilson Street. In the staff report (made part cI the permanent file) Mr. AdGivern recommended deni r , of the request predicated on the fact that the int-ro.duct.i- of the automotive., dismantling operation would seta precedent for the area and break down the purpose and the lintent of the M-L Zone,. :(The present auto Wreck- ing operations in the immediate area are nonconforming ming; uses and would only be allowed to, operate until such time that the proper use and intent of the.land as pro- vided in the M.-L 'District would be introduced. - Attorney John Lounibos representing Mr Thomas Caulfield and son, addressed . the Commission stating they strongly supported the ofthe Planning :Dit ector. Mr. LounibQs further stated - that the present. Master Plan and the intdrpret-cition of the Zone should 'he� qrounded, and held ;firm for the protection of the property_ owners;, who p �y plan to establish light, industrial usesi on Lakeville Highway. Mr,. .&taqk addressed the Planning Commission questioning the interpretation of what constituted a junk, yard and what constituted an auto wrecking `yard. 'Chair- man Fostmeiet inf6rmed Mr. Stack, that the Zoning Ordinance clearly ex0ludes auto dismantling in the interprelt-Ation of Junk yards. Mr. Stack also wanted to kno' at what w point an automobile became Turik, and f urther informed 'the Comm that he had' 'obtained a business license. from Ci,ty" 't � the carry' on the auto dismzifttling :busllness.., Mr,. Mc,O said the license had been issued in error without 5- Planning Commission May 7, 1968' ALLEN proper- pr:oOes'sing 'through the Bui'ldirg/Planning De STACK partment,. chairman Fostmeier -med Mr. Stack that USE the only function of the Planning Commission was the PERMIT interpretation of; the ZorAng Ordinance. A motion, U14 -68 denying the;use permit '., was introduced; `by Comm. '(CONTINUED) Koenitze'r, seconded by Comm. Perry and was denied by the following, vote.: Ayes: Koenitzer, Perry, Styles, Fostmeer. Noes: Battaglia. _ SORENSEN The Commission reviewed the lot split submitted for LOT SPLIT the Sorensen Funeral Home to be'located at the south - west corner of Petaluma Blvd. North and Cemetery Lane. Mr. McGovern presented .a staff report, recommending approval of the tentative parcel map subject to six conditions (`said report listing the'condit,ons, is part of 7the permanent file) Mr. Hal 'Wood, Assistant City Engineer addressed the 'Commiss .n to the installa.ti,or of a required, storm drain Comm. Battaglia questioned the f;easib-i,lity of requiring half section of street on Cemetery Lane. D,ck.,Lieb, representing the subdivider was of the ;opinion that, when' Western Motors' area was annexed to the City, the City of Petaluma agreed to ,improve Cemetery Lane as a, condition: of the annexation. 'Mr. Lieb further 'stated to require side- walks on Cemetery Lane would. serve no purpose and the in- stallation of an oversized drainage system to solve the drainage; problem,, should also involve other property owners - in. the area. Mr. Lieb voiced 'no objections to the requirements for the development along Petaluma Blvd. North but was of the opinion that, improvements on Cemetery Lane should be withheld pending mutual agreement 'with- other property owners for future development in the area. Mr. Bob Pope also stated that sidewa -11.s would serve; no purpose and it wass, their intent to landscape the area to the curb and gutters. A motion,,, approving the tentative lot split with the conditions as outlined in the Plann'i -ng Director°' s re,port'., With, the exception of requiring sid'eualks,; was introduced. by 'Comm;. Styles, seconded'by Comm,. 'Perry and was,defe'ated by the follow- ing vote: ,NoOs:: Battaglia,, Koenitzer, Perry, Fostmeie'r. Ayes: Styles =. A second motion, recommending the approval of the 'tentative lot split with the conditions as out lined in the Director of Planning's -report was intro-, duced by Comm,; Koenitzer, seconded -by Comm,. Battaglia, and passed I by therfo.11owing vote: Ayes: :Battaglia, Koenitzer, Perry, Fostmeier. Noes::° Styles. -6 Planning Commiss:ion May 7, 1968 POLITICAL Comm Koeni'tzer ,asked about the status of : the political SIGNS. signs whch` 'have been erected within the City Limits. Mr -. McGiv'ern replied that no response had been re- ce,ved,,;by the staff to the: notices written `to the property owners-,involved to remove the signs. MODEL Chairman Fostmeier recommended, that the Model A_r -plane AIR, Group, meet on a Saturday or Sunday a Lucchesi Park and. PLANE fly, ;their models; and then set A publ .c hearing to make; CLUB f a decision as to their use of the: park, Mr. McGivern stated' that Mr. Shollenbergere had ;informed him that the 'Pa - -rks & ,Recreation C'ommiss :oh had: me and. were not, in favor of 'Lucchesi Park. be ncy / lised b I t e Model Air- - 'plane Club. j Clerk Commissioner Battaglia ,left the ;meeting at 10:10. AAA OFFICE The Commission reviewed the site design for the pro- SITE p osed AAA office building to be located on the parcel DESIGN of land bounded by Bodega,Avenue, Howard Street and VARIANCE Washington Sttreet,. Mr. McGivern,stated that the site V4 -68 plan .indicates adequate off,stree.t, parking. Together "- with 'the s1te plan review, the applicant requested a variance ,for` various encroachmefits by the proposed' `building into the property setback lines and to allow two signs as shown 'on the plan,., The P °lanning Director stated this property is a unique situation because of the fact-it is .an island, type of parcel also, there are • slopes, from -the street right-of-way to the property line which are more, than - adequate to'provide the necessary building setbac_,.ks and open space. Mr., :Schyler Jeffreys., representing, the applicant -,, reviewed the plans and variances' requested (one_for setbacks and -for signing). Two signs totalling an area.of approkimately 1.9 square feet are requested. (The Ordinance allows ;1,2 square feet.) A motion, granting the variances, was introduced by Comm. Koeni,zter, seconded by Comm. ;Perry and passed ; by all members present. A motion 'approving site design with the .. condition, that landscape plans be submitted to the Planning Director for his ;approval and all public im- provements comply °with requirements setforth by the City Engineer, was introduced. by Comm Koenitzer, seconded by Comm., Perry and passed- by' all , nember's present. POLITICAL Comm Koeni'tzer ,asked about the status of : the political SIGNS. signs whch` 'have been erected within the City Limits. Mr -. McGiv'ern replied that no response had been re- ce,ved,,;by the staff to the: notices written `to the property owners-,involved to remove the signs. MODEL Chairman Fostmeier recommended, that the Model A_r -plane AIR, Group, meet on a Saturday or Sunday a Lucchesi Park and. PLANE fly, ;their models; and then set A publ .c hearing to make; CLUB f a decision as to their use of the: park, Mr. McGivern stated' that Mr. Shollenbergere had ;informed him that the 'Pa - -rks & ,Recreation C'ommiss :oh had: me and. were not, in favor of 'Lucchesi Park. be ncy / lised b I t e Model Air- - 'plane Club. j Clerk