Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/02/1957Y APRIL 2,..:1957 egular meeting; of the Planning Commission. held on April 2- 1957 at 7:30 o'clock p< m. n_.the Council Chambers,,, Clay Hall, Petaluma, California.. 18 7 Present. Commissioners Carlson, Elmore, Margolis and Taylor Absent; Commissioners Brown and SaIles. City, Officials. City Engineer Russell. Ingram and -City Manager. Ed. Frank APPROVAL OF - MINUTEST, Minutes of, March 19, 19:57 were approved as = recorded. CORRESPONDENCE Notice from North Bay Division of League of Calif. '!ies of jnext meeting to be held at Cali stoga on April, 13 1957, was read and filed: LILLIAN HARDIE Use Permit app.lica:tion. #123 of Lillian- Hardie, .8 Keller Street to conduct home for foster children, daytime care, C -.2 zone, was next considered.. The. applicant wa.s 'present and ;requested permi.ss °ion to care for six foster children. This being, included as a condition in the. use permit, Resolution 'No. U12 =57 granting,the Use Permit was introduced by Commissioner Margolis, seconded by Commissioner Elmore and, unanimously passed by all members present. AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE_ - = The matter of amending, the Zoning Ordinance to require a minimum. living area for dwellings within the City limits was next .considered'. Chairman Taylor pointed out chat under our present-zoning ordinance a. residential building could be built with - a minimum. living area of 210 sq. ft. on a- large. lot in a. choice residential, neighborhood which would deteriorate property values within. that area. He further started that the City of Anaheim had solved this roblem b. requiring p y q g a minimum.of 1100 sq. ft. of living area within a residential district.. The City Engineer reported that he had reviewed about 20 zoning. ordinances of "other California .Cities and none of these had ,a minimum living area require- ment, but that :the City of Fairfield was. proposing a. zoning, ordinance whereby the residential zones were divided into -six different groups instead of the usual R -.1, R- 2.and. R- 3.di:stricts. APRIL 2; 195;7 EN'DM`EN'I TO 'ZONING A .general d fol1lowe& w'he'rein it was deter- ORDINANCE ;;- C ®ntinueti..; rni.ned. that a minimum living are : for re;sielential de�:ll.ngs ,Should be required, but that the minimum should not:''be so' high .as to create a hardship., It was gg s e � d ® m�lbejr the residential districts could, be d _ _ r districts And set a_ different minimum for each one,. ,- A poll was taken of the - I members resent and it a:s unanimousl e p . y a red that g- tthe zoning_ should be amended to reflect ` - the .above. Chairman. TAylor directed the City Eng = . neer and. City Attorney to inve : stigO to the matter farther and; ;submlt. a, proposed amendment to f,Y e omri�assi.cn.�s. _soon as po'ssble , for further _ consideration. PETALUMA TRADE CENTER ING. 9 DELBERT ROCK : &.:ASSOGATES gessrs, Abck,- Harmon., Young; Cavanagh, Johnson anal Ey ing, re atives of: the Petaluma `I rade Centet I_m were pre'sen and - requested approval of the prel.rnfnary. plot .plan, for th shopping center be bur lt. cn Douglas. Street. inasmuch as this item was not - oh :the, agenda%, a:; poll was taken and it was t:nanam+usl.y agreed to C onsider the pl ans at :thi:s time. The plans were subm and upon -exami.nation they appeared -to be in: aecor with all requirem except that. -W) prove sfon s. had been made for the posse' -ble e tehs :on of Balser Street. A general ,discus -= sion f0lIowed d ring whicIh. the question was. I raised as to whether or not anything had b regardx.ng the i.ngre.s,s and egress traffic from the property to Fair Street. Mr. Young assured the o I -- "bssI that They ' would work with the Schoo1 Boar. df on .th s problem and something would be 'worked but to close = entr,ance'and exit during the hours when school traffic would be at ;its peak. It agreed by all, parties that the, requirements of the School Board in this matter would-be-given first coasideration b'efbr :co nstruction begins ion the'pro- ject.. A poll was then taken of "the Commissioners present; � it was .the. unanimous opinion that the. C omm give An. informal approval of. the prelim- . . na ry: plot plan with the condition that the City Cou ' ci.l t has no obj6ct4on's- o the plan in.:ts.entirety, particu- s ,� tarty to. the: fact _ that Baker Street is be.ng cut off by the bullding The City Manager then, stated that the Plann!. ComjTi ssi.o should subm a letter to fhe City .Cou ncil of their findings And if thins letter wa s. , recoi.ved by la;riday he would: put the matter on the agenda Chai.rr -an..Tayl.or .assured them _that 4a- letter . would be- written by ghat time.: /2� . APRIL, 2•, 1957,!7-,-. page. 3 The City Mana ger in fo r - med the Commission. that budgets for the -next years. expenditures should be prepared, and submitted to him for the Council as soon as possfble. Arid `he had asked the City Engineer' to report, the Commission the information he had obtained 'in San. Francisco and Sacramento about the Federal Government In the financing. of Planning projects. The. City Engineer explained , that the Federal Government would pay 507 the cost of a planning project. For example, if project cost $'12s 0 the Federal Government would pay $6, 000. and the City would pay $6, 000. Of the $6, 000. paid by the.City, $3,.000. 'Would be in cash. and the other $3, 000. would be paid- in the way of services by City' persbnnol that is,. Engiheering Department and stenographic work. - He further stated that a. planning project was necessary in Petaluma. -the next year to make a land use survey and. land use maps extending the City into the County and . tying it into" the County's zoning, a master streets and highways plan.and the Zoning map should be revised. In.order to secure Federal aid, a community planfier would have tobehirod. Chairman Taylor stated that the .budget would be placed on -the agenda for the next meeting,on April 16th, and..this matter would be dis- pussed.at that time. There being no further business to come, before the meeting,. meeting,was adjourned.