Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/04/1969f h, I ,February 4, 1969 ,Regular meeting of the Petaluma City Planning Commission was held on February 4, 1969 at 7:30 p.m.. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, Petaluma, California. PRESENT;: Comm. Battaglia, Koeni.tze.r, .Perry, Styles, Stanley. ABSENT:. None. STAFF': William C. McGivern,. Director of- Planning "Andy" Anderson, Assist. Planning: Director. APPROVAL OF MINUTES the minutes for 21, 196;9 were approved as corrected. to be held to convide'r Foothill Manor filed by A.' Condiotti was January 24, The minutes for the special meetingo as submitted. the regular meeting of January The date of the special meeting Subdivision 41 and the rezoning 1969, not February 24, 1969. f January 24, 1969 were approved CORRESPONDENCE Sonoma County Referrals Charles Meroney File 4666 Use ,permit to allow a mobile home to be located at -444 Sunny S1ope.Avenue., Assessor's Parcel No. 19- 14 -39. l y Mr. Jerry Stewart. and Mr. Willard V ogel, residents of the area, presented a petition. containing 15 names addressed to the Sonoma County Board of Zoning Adjustments voicing their opposition to the proposed mobile home to be located at 444 Sunny Slope Avenue. I.t.was ascertained by the Com- mission the subject area has developed into a high quality residential neighborhood, and therefore, the Commission felt a mobile home would not be compatible with the exist- ing residential development. Mr:., McG.vern was directed by the Planning Commission to forward a letter to the County recommending th °at the use permit be denied. Thomas Lyle Roberts File 4071 Use permit to allow a mobile home to be used for a caretaker or manager's residence at 5393 Redwood Highway South. (Same property as the drive -in theatre.) Since the proposed site for the mobile trailer does not effect the.Petaluma Area General,Plan, the Planning Commission had no adverse recommendation to make on the use permit request. SITE DESIGN Mr. Tom Gaffey and. Mr. Herb West, applicants for the 7 -11 MARKET proposed 7-11 Market and offices to be located at 721 &. O:FYICE'S East Washington Street, submitted a revised plot plan FILE 5.115 of the site. The initial plan submitted on January 21, 196;9 was tabled for further study in order to pro- vide for adequate off-street parking. In view of the fact that the revised site plan indicates the building located on the side property line, the applicant was advised to, file a v.ar;i,,ance im order to 'build the structure. as shown. The variance and site design will, -be processed on February 18, 1969'. -2- Planning February Commission Minutes 4, 1969 CHRISTIAN The Commission reviewed the re.que,st filed by 'the CHURCH,, USE Christian Church. to renew the use permit 'to' allow PERMIT RENEWAL construction of a: church: at 11.50 Schuman. Lane. In FILE U3-69 view of the difficulties the churcb has had in arrang FILE 5.116 ing financing, the staff :recommended renewal of the SITE DESIGN use permit. A motion recommending the renewal of the FILE 5.117 use permit with. the dondi.t.en that ".if the public im- provements are not completed prior to construction of the church,, the church will be required to make said i:mprovemen'ts such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street along their frontage ",, was.introduced by--Comm. seconded. Styles, seconded by Comm. Perry, and passed by all members of the s s i.on DR. SAMUEL The Commission reviewed the variance application filed BROWN, VARIANCE by Dr. Samuel Brown to allow a reduction in the required FILE V2 -69 & rear yard setback from 20 feet to 1,0 feet for a proposed SITE DESIGN medical office to be o,cated at 10 West E1 Rose Drive. FILE 5.116 The'Planning Direc'tor's report stated a slope on the SITE DESIGN subJect property presents a practical difficulty and FILE 5.117 hardsfiip for providing adequate and safe parking to the .rear of, the site. It was also noted by the Planning Commission a similar variance was granted on the adja- cent property. Because the evidence showed a definite hardship, the staff recommended approval of the variance. The staff further recommended that site de.s,ign. also be. g :ranted subject to the conditions as, stated in the staff report. Dr. Brown was present on behalf of the, application and voiced no opposition to the site design conditions. Res. V2 -69, granting the variance based on the practical. - hardship stated in the staff report, was - introduced by Comm, Koeni,t:zer, seconded by Comm. Perry, and passed by all members present. Site de °si.g for the proposed const.ru.ction with the conditions out.l.i.ned in the Planning Director's report was introduced by Comm— K:oenit -zer, seconded by Comm. Perry, and passed_by all members of the Commission. FREDERICK J. The Planning Comm,isssIon reviewed the variance applica- DAVIS tion, filed by Frederick J. Davis to allow construction VARIANCE of a duplex on a lot with less than the required usable FILE V3 -69 open space in an R -2- 300°0 Zone at 301 English. Street. The ,staff report, stated that the subject, site is an SITE DESIGN existing lot with substandard width, depth and area FILE 5.117 measurements. In view of the fact that the proposed duplex meets all the ordinance requirements except for the "ope , space" provision (whi.ch requires 1.200 square feet of usable the staff recommended approval of the variance. The staff further recommended that site design be approved subject to the conditions P tinning °Commis,sion Minutes 'F:ehruary 4 1 1969 `FREDERICK J. outlined -in the staff 'report 'relative to fencing and DAVIS landscaping. The Commiss,,on concurred with the staff (CONTINUED) that a,defini.te hardship,exists due to the substandard size lot. Res. V3 -69, approving the variance as re- quested,, was introduced by Comm. Perry, seconded by Comm. Styles, and passed by all members present. CASTLEWO.OD The Commiss.i:on reviewed the tentative map filed by SUBDIVISION the Castlewood Development Corporation for Castlewood TENTATIVE MAP Subdivision to be located off' Schuman Lane. (A pre - FILE 7 -69 vious` map had been approved by the Planning Commission and subsequently expired._) The staff recommended ten conditions of approval. Mr. -Ron Simpkins, representing the - engineering firm for Castlewood Development Corpora- tion, offered no objections to the conditions imposed. Res. 7 =.69, approving the tentative map of Castlewood Subdivision with the ten conditions as stated in the Planning_ Director's report, was introduced by Comm. Styles, seconded by Comm. Perry, and passed by all members of the Commission. ZONING AMEND= Chairman Stanley opened the public hearing to consider MENT amending, the Zoning Ordinance to provide for the location FILE 6 -69 of temporary offices for subdivisions and temporary mobile office trailers Mr. McGivern, Planning Director, reviewed the conditions of compliance. No opposition was voiced to the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Res. 6 -69, recommending the amendment to the Zoning Ordnance, was introduced,by Comm.. Styles, seconded by Comm. Perry, and passed by all members present. A. CONDIOTTI A request filed by A. Condiotti to rezone a portion of REZONING Assessor's Parcel No.. 7- 510 -18 from an R- 1- 6,000 (Single - FILE 22-69 family residential) Zone to R -M -1500 (Multiple- family residential) Zone or District was continued until this date. Although the public hearing on the matter was closed at the Special :Meeting, held on January 24, 1969, Chairman Stanley stated that both the applicant and any - one wishing to speak in opposition to the request would be given five minutes to state their case. Larry Hannon, President of the Petaluma Gardens Homeowners Association, again voiced's'trong opposition to the rezoning and introduce.d;a petition containing 283 signa- tures requesting that the Commission deny the rezoning. Paul Salisbury, representative for the Petaluma Gardens Homeowners. Association and Bill Conners, Manager of the Petaluma.Sky Ranch, also spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Condiotti spoke on behalf o1 his application A motion, recommending denial of the proposed rezoning, ., r n4;_ Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 1969 ,y A,. CONDIO.TTI was. introduced by Comm. Perry, seconded by Comm. Styles RE G; ZONIN and voted on as follows: Ayes: Comm. Perry, Styles . FILE Z2 - Noes: Comm. Battaglia, Koenit•z..er,. Sta.nle.y� (CONTINUED) Footnote: It is noted because the motion to deny the application was defeated the zoning is therefore ap- proved;. FOOTHILL MANOR The Commission reviewed the tentative map filed by SUBDIVISION A. Condiotti for Foothill. Manor #1 Subdivision located FILE 5 -69 adjacent to the Petaluma Gardens Subdivision #1 and #2 on Ely `Blvd. South.. Mr. McG.vern stated the Subdivision Committee recommended approval. of the tentative map, subject to 11 conditions of approval. Mr. Condiotti. (be:cause he is already donating a five - acre park site) objected to Item #:11 which states as follows: "Lot 77 and 7`8 shall be deleted from the tentative map in order to provide for adequate frontage of the proposed park site. This is a recom- mendation by the Parks and Recreation Commission." After further discussion,, Comm. Styles recommended that the tentative map be approved subject to all conditions listed in the Plann Director's report except Item #11. There was no second to the motion. Comm. Styles then recommended denial of the tentative S map except for Condition: #11. Again, there was -no second. Following further discussion, a motion was made by Comm. Koenitzer, seconded by Comm. Styles, recommending approval a roval of Foothill Manor #1 with the conditions as stated in the Planning Director's report, except for Item #.11 which was amended to read as follows: "Lots .65, 66, 67, 68, 69; 77, and 78 shall be made available to the City at the developer's raw acreage cost for park: purposes. The City shall have an opportunity to acquire the land within a period of one year from date of recordation.of the final map. The motion passed by all members present. COMMI.S;SION Commissioner Koenitzer recommended that the Planning MEMBERSHIP Commission be increased to seven Commissioners to be assured of a quorum at the meeting. It was also Mr. Koenitzer' s recommendation that all matters involving a public hearing should require an affirmative vote of at least four members even if only four members are in attendance. Comm. Koen .tzer also referred to several- sections of the Zoning Ordinance which need revision and clarification, ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Com- mission, the meeting was adjourned, Attests r Ch..8. rm'a;n, -- Director of Planning