HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/20/1959-JANUARY '2Q, 195:9
' meetin Petalu.rria City ;Planning Commission ;held Tuesda January Regular ' .. g of the y J ary 20,
1`9.5:9 at.7' 30-o'.clock p. mo n'Ithd Council Chiambers, 'City Hall, Petaluma,' Califorriiao
ROLL CALL
Presen`,t° ; C'ommissioners E11'is, 'M:argolits; , Stimson,;arid Deano.
' Absent: Commis'sioners ,Parsons;Po.PP and
Tibbetts, ,
4. City Offi°cials,o Planning Director Richard Co.leman,, City., Attorney Edouard ' .
' `Robert,; and Councilman Milton ,Gustafsono
- XPPROVA°L OF MINUTES
Minutes, of mee,tings,.:held Deoe:mber 28 '1.9,58, December 1.6, 195$ and
January;, 6, ;1959_,. were .approved. as recorded.,
CORRESPONDENCE'
„v ,Lett6r,"fromPelter N. Sillasen of Gooding Idaho,j requesting permission -to
operate a wrecking an'd baling operation in a_n, industrial district;, was :read and,
Al
ed The Planning, Director .gave a brief re,sum'e: of .the location of the site and
,;, the re.,quire:ments of 'aheE zoning,. ordinance -.for this, operation; . Jt. Wa8 ;his opinion
that a -use permit could be ,granted on the conditions, that fencing'be ,required
•' - f dis-
when needed:.,and street ,access Ito. ,meet: approval" of City Engineer° A. brie
cussiori was held regarding the smoke which would be created from the, burning
",bf old car ,bodies and the effect` it would have upon air pollut *ono The'Planning'
Directo,r`wa's�;l�directed to, advise Mi., Sillasen that a Us'e permit would be required
; and of the above conditions which might be placed in 'the permit if irwere gra.ntede.
uit. Realt 'dated January,. 13,, :19 q p Letter from S y J y 59.; re. nesting an .o mon m, regard;
to. the issuance of a variance -to construct a ,6-,unit apartment ,house at 7.05
Petaluma` Blvd.. South, was +read and filed. No one was present repre.sentin'g the
" Sui't Realty Co. A, &scussion was held -regarding the giving Aof infor' ' ' al °:pinions
prior to -the filing of a variance 6 lication. Chairman Dean' poi 'ted:'that ,a lot
of time and money ,is ;involved for the City in investiga`.tin'g such a: 'var.iance. and,; -
,.
therefore., it -was preferred that ;a variance ,application; be filed.before, d'iscussiono
,11,The:,Ci-ty., Attorney, pointed out that no, decision, could be made until a variance;
application had been filed. It was the determination, of the. Commission that they
-,should at least have, more detailed informatim and a' rePresentative present
'before. any di cussion`was held. 'Tie. Planning`Director was dfrected.1.6 contact,
the. Suit Realty. and' advise them that, if they'"vaould submit more detaile'd,-info:rma-
tion;. the.Commission,would take up their -matter a`t the next .meetin'g "
-Notice of the next; meeting of the North 'Bay Division of;`the League ,of California.
Cities to be he. -I'd January 31, 1959.; at the City_ of _Benicia `in the -Officers Glob at.',
e
the Benicia Arsenal, w ^ as7 read andfiled,
�Letterr from .the ,Petaluma; City Schools, "signed by, 'both the'Petaluma "and .Old Adobe
Superintendent of 'Schools, dated January 14,, 1959, 'relative to the need of additi`onal'
JANUARY'-20^ 1959_ - Page ;2
CORRESPONDENCE' - Continued.
.� g p
achool= housin in, the. Old' Adobe District, was read and. fi;led, In explanation,
'
of -this letter•-Mn Colemanr stated- that a meeting,:was he'ld.Jast week between
these two school boards„ re.garding',.t- r- mutual problems .in East Petaluma
chool, adthshortagof schoolaround the McDowell Srooms in, the ,O'ld. Adobe
Di -strict. They. are interested. in `having a study made to locate, el'ernentary
schoolsites. 'Mx.o Coleman,pointed out that the solution needed' is the-gene'ra.l
L plan_ study, so that we' cah find out what the °1'ai d. use fs to bey"so that the school'
sites can,, be well ,located, A similar request .is to, be .made` to the dou'nty Plann-
ing; Commi°ssion. and we will, cooperate ;with,therno, Chairman. Dean. instructed
1VIra Coleman to forward. a le.'tter to the 'Co,unty Planning,Commission .informing;
them that we will confer with.th_e.m„-relative to this, proble n*. It was also sug,
gested ''that a copy, of this letter be .sent to" the Board of Silpervisor s keeping them
- a.
informed of the joint `work "between 'thi`s ,Commission .and the .Sonoma County
'Planning Comm'iission.
ANTRONY J. ^,:CONTE - _File,No.. 'V5- 58
Continuation. 11 of ;the public hearing: on the application filed' by Anthony J. Conte
for a variance for a front yard setback on -Lot L '(A,sses^sor"9 Parcel 46-292-1.6), on Brainerd Avenue., :R=1 zone,,. to. cons iruct:a house,,, was, the first item c'onsid
-. i
r erect,. "An thopinion from e. City Attorney relative to the necessity of this vari°.nee
was' submitted. and filed, Edouard Robert;:. 'Ci y A:ttorneyy, outlined b__riefl.y°'his' "
opinion to the applicant. and ;the ;Commission,. ° In brief,,, theopinion ,giwe-n was that; .
n • the var'iance° issued to this property several years ago,- no longer existed, due. ,ta
the one Fear limitation set forth i�n,the' present,zoni:ng-ordinance,; therefore, 1VIro
Conte mpst,'continue w�ith� his, present application for -a variance as, if he had. no
variance° F.urtlier.9 Section '100.3 -and. siib"sections thereof do not apply to ,the
applicant `as he in `fact has no vai.iance",and1e pa bl nC earfiig: is necessary only
when .thelfe i.s a violation of the terms of t_
No expressions, were ,hea_rd. in favor-. or agains,t,thO-gr,a.rit ng.of. this, variance;
When asked for a• recommendation from the 'Planni'ng.,Di':rector.,r Mr-. Coleman
stated that- he felt ,the variance ,should be granted.a�s it was" a logical ,one due to
the steep' slope 'i 'the property and the other houses are bui:lt.in,'the same way
- . .'long the cul=de= aco_ There being no further eomnmen,ts, `Resolution'Noa "V5=5.8
recommending„ to the City Council that, the wary' ce- be, granted subject to the, '
fohlow`ing.'condition,. was introduced ,by COMMissioner° Margolis,_ ''se.conded by
Commi_ssione'.El is. and' u:nanim- ously passed by all members, present:
''Th s variance shall expire if'not-,used.within one �.1.) year from
date of this resolution without further ;notification. ""
• ALBERT BONO,MI - File: No, V6-58,
Continuation of -the public hearing on variance rappl`iea'tion filed by Albert ,13onomi
.for afront. yard,andside,yard: setback to constr 1ct, a carportrt.at 117 Be11e, View
° ,Avenu`e., :R- l zone Was held next',, M ', Bonomi:, was present on behalf 'of his,
n'7
J•ANNUARY ,20,A .. l95:9' Page 3
. .. � ALBER-T BO,NJ OVI -. File Noo V6-5:8- Continued. ,
,
4ppli-cation "and stated that he had. not decided where to locate -the carport and
he 'would like to. Have" more' time; instead of continuing with his app'lieation; in
it's pre.sent forma A 'discussion was then held' with the applicant to determine
the best location for the carport and the, va-rious •zoning and, building require-,
mentso Mr. Bonomi then stated- he would �giye, the matter further consideration
and .at a la -ter date, would, amend his a;pplica,ti�ono. It w.,as suggested that Mn,
Bono .,. ,
, rni contact the. City Enginee�'�s,office in. regard to":fire' and building
-regulations°
'PUB:LIC 'HEARING.- 'Eo VON' RAESFELDg File Noe, V1-:59
'-This. This, being "the 'time and, place for the public hearing on the application filed by
Mr."a'nd Mrs:,, S.. Von Raesfeld :for certain variances. in ordek to construct a
house and swwimming pool .on ,Lot #7 (Assessor's ,Parce;l Nom 8- 33-1-10) in La
C.resta Heights,: ,R,-1 zone,Chairman Dean. called fo•r expressions from the
floor. Mr. Von Raesfeld was present,on behalf of his applicatiorio The,staff
report Was given by Mr. Coleman copy of �ah'ich w'as submitted and filede
The variances .r"eques,t6d were as follows° (a) a l'0 foovredr yard instead. of
" the, -required 20 feet; (b) a. 3 ®1 /..2. foot side' ya-kd.:fo.r the swimming pool instead, y .
,of' the ,required 1.0 feet "for the street side of. a corner lot, and (c) rizinimum
• of 4 �feet.:and -maximum of, o feet' high fence °to enclose the swimming pool on
part,of'. -the front yard and 'a:ll of the street side ;garde Mro Coleman. pointed
out .that -the City Engineer was concerned over, the: -steep grade that would-be
create-d, .between -the lot in .question and the adjoining property and.:he felt,that
-
if the ,variance was granted. it. should be conditioned upon. a certification by.a,.
'soils, engineer. on completion of the4ork- that the. embankment, was constructed.
in accordance with his recommendations, based on commonl' accepted engi-
rieering practjzeso It was, felt that'in do ng.,•'this we would ;be protecting, the
Y adjacent propef°ty and the applicant on any adverse effect of the ,cute
-NO' expressions va'.ere heard in .opposition. to the grant � g_of :this va_r"ian'ceo A
brief ,discussion -followed wherein, the applicant stated, that lie 'was agreeable
_ to the variance .conditioned upon 'the recornmeridations !as made by the
City Engineer° .Whereupon, Resolution No. ,V'l=.S'9 reco'mrnendi'ng, to the -City
Council that the variance be,granted subject to, the --following conditions, was
introduced by Commissioner Srimson, seconded by, Commissioner, Ellis and
una-nimou'sly. approved by. all members present°
1.. This' variance shall expire ;if not ,used within -one (1) year, from'
date, of this resolution without further,notifica:tiona.
2 Appl'icant., shall file _with the.City Engineer a 'certification by soils°
„ engineer on,.completion of,Work that the embankment wAs,:con:
�y strutted in .accordance with his recommendations; based on com-
monly accepted engineering. practice's.
JA'NUART 2'0, W. �1°959 -.',Page, 4
KEfiNILW,ORTH.PARK.'',RE`C'RE'A:TION- BUILDING
Mr, 'Cotle'ma'n. stated that he had 'red this report and the long range:
development plan 'at the, request of. the City Gounci,l And City Manager for the
best possible planning of, I<en lworth Park and trhe,;proposed.Recxeation Build
ing •The report wars° then presented in de,tail,and it was pointed out .on the
long range d'eveloprneni plan'the proposed location of the Recreation Building
a'cross::ftoin the fairground' entrance, toge'rl�ex° d'w,ith. the Little League ball
diamond game court -area, chi.ldrens.playgrodfid, picnic, area and off-street
u - " parkiggo He: emphasized:: the, fact 'that this 'plan° is 'based on the'°best service
and design and does'not take cost into consideration,
A'general,;d'iscus'sioR,wa,s held wherein„1t wds pointed, ou,t that with the location
of the .Recreation building in the southeast corner. 'of the park;it would,
oyerla,p, approximately. :2:50 ;feet. into the field for softball, and it, would snake
the field usable only', for Little. League, Further, than, the County=wide Road
ed ,the widening,of Washington'
plan t'13 feet on he park side which.'would, e`xP nd approximate 3 fe'tio
centl re area b" DeLeuw Ca:ther ro' os
Stf.eet y et into
the Little League; ball" diainondo Mr'o Coleman °stat-d,�thdt ,t
_ here would, be a,
greater° distance.,between the Recreation building and the ball diamond, if, the
`building were .lo.cated on Payran Street, bu,t he felt that the location across:
from the :fal_rgrounds entrance �Os more favorable for, the- reasons that it
would ,eliminate. undesirable on street, pa-rking; it; is closer to ttie. part of* the ,
parking lot which is likely to 'be surfaced first;_ t-wnuld give the building, a.
„ par rk=like setting;,, and. would relate well. to tlio rest of the park facilirie,so
y`mson, ' the. µPlanning,Diiector w
to the suggestion of Co°Commissioner ` ` At ugg S - ', � . as directed
to
prepare an overla' showFin , ossible° loca.t' onde
y g p ions fox the 'ball dia m
Councilmn Gusta.f's& ,; who;,also, ser°ve8 one Recrea_tionCommission, felt.
hat ;the"main prom ble' I & the greater •cos;t involved -in moving ,the building
t
from the originally, p finned site on Pa'y,ran Street `to. the new site,,- M'ra Coleman
T., :emphaAsize' the fact that this'p.la 'had been pre pay° d. from. a; ,plaanning ;poi-nt,
of„view end did not °take; cost factors .into comi.deration and stated a study was
being made by the 'City Eingineer's office as,to-wheresewer' connections could
be, -made, together w th'.4destimate of the. costs involved.,
Chairman Dean.:eXpla'n'ed that °this plan, i,s only a° starting:point and there may
be, mdny variations before a glands ,finally adopted, Further, that •no formal
action is :necessary 'by the Plann ng,CoM iss :on afthis', tirne:,and, that: the pldn
°P ` at on nly, it will be °presentedr'to ,the,
- Commi,asion ;for their inform'
.., was ^ ' resented' to, them for thei r informat
. Recreation ,t their meetng.�to be Held
January 23rd, The City Cquneil will make the final decision„as to where the
Recreation btxildi`ng will 'be loca:tedo
STAFF RE'PO'RTS
'Mr o Coleman stated'. that the :first item on. the agenda of the6 Sonoma, County,
:P1a.nning, .Comin'ission •meeting, to 'be ,he'ld. Thursday,; January 22nd, will be a
J;ANU'A`RY _20p 1.959' - Page 15'
I ,
STAFF REPORTS continued'
dise,ussi'on 'between the County Planning,' Commission, and' the Board of Super-
visors relative to joint City, -:County planning, projects. The Petaluma General
Plan falls under this cata;gory 1VI.r Coleman'fur'ther stated that he would
attend- this meeting and, any, of the other Commissioners who could attend
would be. welcome°
ADJOURNMENT
There being ;no further business) to come before the` meeting,, Jhe` meeting wars
:adjourned..
I I '
,I, it - i •. i