Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 19, 1984 PHPUBLIC HEARINGS Notice thereof having been published in accordance with law and affidavit of publication being on file in the office of APPEALOF I)W,L the City Clerk, Mayor Snider called for the Public Hearing ~� MM RE to consider the appeal of Daryl Geweke, 1045 South Cherokee EXMICN OF Lane, Lodi, of the Lodi City Planning Commission's detennina- LU" STREET tion that there was a need to extend Lloyd Street and Woodrow AICA V1OCURCW Street south, in order to eliminate the existing deadend STREET 9O1JIfi situation on these streets in conformnce with City Street CCWINthD Standards. The Planning Commission will require that the developer of the cormvrcial property to the south construct an east-west street to form a loop street cormecting Lloyd and Woodrow Streets. The Planning Cmmission also required that there be an appropriate buffer between the commercial and residential properties and that all commercial access to the new street be to the approval of the Conmission. City Staff was directed to work with the developer to came up with a mutually agreeable street design. City Clerk Reimche apprised the Council that a request had been received from Mr. Geweke asking that the matter be continued for two weeks. Following a brief discussion, on motion of Mayor Pro Tempore llinchman, Olson second, Council continued the matter to the Regular Meeting of the Council to be held October 3, 1884. LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PLBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COLMIL OF THE C I1Y OF LCDI TO OCNS IDI"R THE APPEAL OF DARYL C BOM, 1045 SOUM aMCKEE LANE, LCDI , OF MIE LCDI CITY PLANNING OOMISSIOiv'S DIvTERMINATICN MIAT MWX WAS A NEED TO FX11ND IJMD MY= AND WOCEFUV Snum SOCJIH IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE THE EXISTING DEADEN SITUATION ON THESE SMEM IN MANCE WITH CITY SnUM SI;ANII)AEDS. THE PLArNING OCMI7ISSICN WILL REQUIRE THAT THE DEVEIAPFR OF THE: OMTM CIAL PROIPEM TO THE SCIIMI CCNS A= AN EAST -WEST STREET 10 ICRV1 A LOCP SI= OO NDGTING LIDM AMID WOCEMV SIRFE11S. THE PLANNING OCAMI SS ICN AIM REQUIRED THAT U -MM BE AN APPFCPRIATE BUFFMt BEMEFN THE CCMUCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PRCPIRTIES AND IVAT ALL CMUCI AL AIDCTSS TO THE NEW S'IRI- T BE TO THE APPROVAL OF TIS CIIMfISSICN. CITY STAFF WAS DIRECTED TD 1M WITH THE DEVELOPER TO OME UP WITTI A DiJIUMLY MIEFABLE SIREET DISICN. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, Septenber 19, 1984 at the hour of 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the Lodi City Planning Cumission will conduct a Public Hearing in the Chambers of the Lodi City Council at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California, to consider the appeal of Daryl Geweke, 1045 South Cherokee Lane, Lodi, of the Lodi Planning CaTmissions determination that there was a need to extend Lloyd Street and 1%bodrow Street south in order to eliminate the existing deadend situation on these streets In conformance with City street standards. The Planning Commission will require that the developer of the ccm-m�rcial property to the south construct an east -west street to form a loop street connecting Lloyd and Woodrow Streets. T`ie Planning Commission also required that there be an appropriate buffer between the ccamiercial and residential properties and that all commercial access to the new street be to the approval of the Cc mission. City staff was directed to work with the developer to cater up with a mutually agreeable street design. Infommtion regarding this item may be obtained in the office of the Camunity Development Director at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California. All interested persons are invited to present their views either for or against the above proposal. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the Hearing scheduled herein and oral statements may be made at said Hearing. Dated: September 5, 1984 By Order of the City Council At;/ A. 4MC& . Alice M. Reimche City Clerk SQ� j i _MF HCHRY August 31, 1984 Alice Rei=he City Clerk Lodi, California 95240 I, Daryl Geweke, long time Lodi resident and one of Lodis' largest contributors of the citys' coffers, would like to appeal the decision of tie Lodi Planning Commission. The decision was made August 27, 1984, to join Woodrow and Lloyd Streets. We would like to be scheduled for the City Council Meeting on Wednesday, September 19, 1984. S' ely, Dart' "peke President Leasing • Sales • Service • Lodi 209/369-4725 • Stockton 209/466-8571 •1045 S. Cherokee Lane 9 Lodi, CA 95240 UNCIL C011 MUNICATII TO: TMM CITY COUNCIL DATE FROM: TME CITY MANAGER'S OUNCE September 10, 1984 4MECT: W V Appeal of Daryl Geweke re joining Woodrow and Lloyd Streets In response to a request from Jack Ronsko, Public Works Director, as to input on the termination of Lloyd and Woodrow Streets to a retaining wall ..... Over the past years the Police Department has received numerous complaints (particularly from the residents on Lloyd Street) re- garding the parking of vehicles in the area of the dead end of Lloyd Street where it now goes into a vacant field. The major complaint is that cars park in that area, not allowing residents access to the street from their private driveways due to the lack of a turning radius. I feel that if we terminate the street, as proposed by Geweke, this problem will be compounded and 1 would be opposed to any termination other than a cul-de-sac or a connecting street from Lloyd to Woodrow. Respectfully submitted, Floyd A. Williams Chief of Police FAW: j km City of Lodi FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS STATION 210 WEST ELM STREET LODI. CALIFORNIA 95240 (209) 333-6735 Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council: 13 September 10, 1984 Writing in regards to the joining of Woodrow and L1oydStreets, which is being appealed by Kr. Darryl G*weke, developer of the adjacent property. The City of Dodi Uniform Fire Code is explicit in stating the provi- sions for roadways and adequate turn-arounds to allow fire apparatus access for fire fighting purposes. These are minimus standards based on fire fighting experience and fire apparatus needs to approach a fire scene. The Fire Code reads in Section 10.207 (a) Required Construction. Every building hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of access roadways with all-weather driving surface of not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, with adequate roadway turning radius capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus and having a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance. Dead-end fire department access roads in excess of 150 feet long shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire department apparatus. Connection of Lloyd and Woodrow Streets with a properly designed road- way would meet the Fire Code requirements. 3 erely, Don MacLeod, Fire Chief CC: H. Qlaves, CH Public Works CITY OF LODI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO: City Council FROM: City Manager DATE: September 11, 1984 SUBJECT: Geweke Appeal Woodrow S Lloyd Street Extensions W COUNCIL COMMUNICATION RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council review the background information on this matter and a ter the hearing, discuss and take the appropriate action on the attached subject appeal. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Walnut Orchard Tract Subdivision was approved by the City Council in July 1947. As part of the planning for that subdivision, provisions were made for the extension of Lloyd and Woodrow Streets to the south and Delores Street to the east. Subsequently the State Highway was relocated and cut off the possibility of extending Delores Street, however, Lloyd and Woodrow Streets still remain extendable. This existing subdivision is presently zoned R2 and RHD. The 7 -acre parcel owned by Mr. Daryl Geweke is located immediately south of the Walnut Orchard Tract SuLdivision and was initially zoned residential, however, it was rezoned commercial in the mid 1960's after the construction of the 99 Freeway. The present City policy is that all dead-end streets be extended or terminated in conformance with City Standards. Since 1975 there have been many inquiries as it relates to the development of this parcel. All parties making inquiries have been informed that the subject streets will have to be extended or terminated with a cul-de-sac. In October of 1983, Geweke Ford inquired how their parcel might be developed. The Community Development Director and myself put together a letter dated Octo- ber 26, 1983, which included many possible combinations of street extensions and terminations. This letter is attached as Exhibit A. In August of this year, the Preliminary Parcel 145p attached as Exhibit B, was submitted by Geweke to the City for processing. This parcel map splits the 7 -acre parcel into 3 parcels with no provisions for extension of Lloyd or Woodrow Streets. It is proposed that a solid block wall be built continuously along the northerly property line of parcels A and C. Therefore, Lloyd and Woodrow Streets would terminate at their present limit into a solid block wall fence. APPROVED: HENRY A. GLAVES, C;ty Manager FILE NO. E City Council September 11, 1984 Page 2 Exhibit C is a copy of a memo from this department to the Community Development Department which commented on the proposed Geweke parcel map. This memo points out that the proposed tentative parcel map does not meet the standards since there were no provisions for Lloyd and Woodrow Street extensions. It was the City's position that since both a past Planning Commission and City Council had approved the final map for rhe Walnut Orchard Tract Subdivisions, that any proposal not providing for these street extensions, would also have to be ap- proved by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Attached as Exhibit D and E are the Planning Commission minutes of August 13 and August 27, 1984. The Planning Commission's decision required (1) that Lloyd and Woodrow Streets be looped (this was based on Mr. Geweke's desire to loop rather than cul-de-sac); (2) that any access to this loop street would re- quire special Planning Commission approval; (3) that the loop street would have to be placed such that the corner lots had the standard side yard setback and; (4) that a 7' solid fence would probably be required `used on the actual develop- ment use and the requirements of SPARC. After the Pla nn;ng Commission meeting, I did meet with the developer. Mr. Geweke, and his engineer Mr. Baumbach, to discuss possible alternates on street looping. Attached as Exhibit F are two possible alternates which do not fully meet all City requirements, however, meet the intent and purpose of the Planning Commission's decision. The developer's engineer indicated to the Planning Commission that both he and the developer were aware of the City's street extension requirements at the time that the parcel was purchased and indicated that the developer would install the street if that was what the City required. However, it is the developer's position that it may be in the City's best interest to have the streets ter- minated with a block wall. City's Concerns Related to Not Providing for Street Extensions or Standard Termination 1. The 300'+ dead-end streets require private citizens to make their turn- around in the private driveways of the residences at the end of the street. 2. As pointed out by Mr. Schmidt in the Planning Commission meeting of August 27, the street sweeper cannot properly clean the end of the dead-end streets. 3. Attached as Exhibit G is a copy of a letter from the Fire Department in- dicating that not extending the streets would be in violation of the existing City of Lodi Fire Code adopted by the City Council. 4. Attached as Exhibit H is a copy of a Council Communication from the Police Department indicating their concern related to the lack of proper turn -around at the ends of these streets. 5. Proposal does not meet long-standing City policy and practice. It is the staff's position that the Planning Commission's decision should be upheld and the appeal denied and that a reasonable looping or termination of the street r ked out with the developer's engineer. t� 'Y�tir ack Ronsko ubl i Works Di rector Att ments cc: Fire Dept. Police Dept. JLR/eeh -K-.E2&P7I Jeep August 31, 1984 Alice Reimche City Clerk Lodi, California 95240 II AMC • Renault -� I, Daryl Gewel:e, long time Lodi resident and one of Lcdis' largest contributors of the citys' coffers, would like to appeal the dec'sion of the Lodi Planning Carmission. The decision was made August 27, 1984, to join Woodrow and Lloyd Streets. We would like to be scheduled for the City Council Meeting on Wednesday, September 19, 1984. Sinc�orely, Dary '- ke' President DG:hd Leasing • Sales • Service • Lodi 209/369-4725 • Stockton 2091466.8571 •1045 S. Cherokee Lana • Lodi, CA 95240 .-._._r-__ ....:..... _.,......... .�. .....i..��_. ...,�..._ �,. ��... .,. . ;:-- .•r..,.».:w � vnm:.: .:;.r rr ac...ea�..:.?�.^.145?M.RiY.r.;¢rluf�iif54«ii`:..�'sa�: 6 October 26, 1963 Geweke Ford 104$ S. Cherokee Lane Lodi, CA 95240 Attention: Larry Geweke Gent leven: SUBJECT: Parcel Development on Cherokee Lane Opposite Poplar Street Per your request, the Community Development and myself have laid out a few conwts for the developrent of the subject parcel. Copies of these concepts are enclosed. it should be noted that based on what your actual € . (� development plans are with respect to land use. there are many variations of the concepts enclosed. Aiso enclosed is correspondence related to this parcel development when it was awned by Sanborn. I have also enclosed a copy of a form which we fill out for prospective f developers which is a preliminary check list related to City require- ments. This sheet is commonly called the "Pink Sheet." Once you have a better feel for the type of land use and zoning you prefer, we would be happy to fill out a pink sheet for your parcel. if you have any questions concerning the development of the subject parcel. 4 please contact ole. t: Sincerely Jack L. Ronsko 6 Public Works Director I Enclosures JLR/ns x F i• a. _ .r�"ihij". .. _ .. .i'C:r.fj. A.a :�^..Y .:l .+C .. .. ...... `i.,��i3.i`iHt; �!4?l•..>TF�'.StLi� ..A' _ wp^� • LI n DELOREs ; y 7�11. - �,� P .� V2 _ d t f' •• n it A - A n � A N O t f' 0 - t CMEt'�KEE L A`• MEMORANDUMS City of Lodi. Public Works Department TO: Community Development Director FROM,- Public Wok" Director DATE: August 6, 1984 SUBJECTS Reweke Tentative Parcel Map (M-84-10) 1130 and 1150 South Cherokee Lane The tentative parcel map must include the proposed extensions or ter— minations of Lloyd Street and Woodrow Street and the applicable right -of - ray dedication of same. A past Planning Commissionand City Council approved the final map for the Walnut Orchard Tract which provided for the extension of these streets. These streets must be extended or terminated per our existing standard unless there is specific approval of the present Planning Comlsslon and City Council. Attached is a copy of a letter to Geweke Ford dated October 26, with enclosures, which point out to them the possible methods of street extension or termination. Once the proposed street alignments are determined, this department can develop the exact conditims of approval of this tentative parcel map. Jack L. ibnsko Public Works Director Attachmnts cc: Darrell Geweke JLR/eeh EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 1984 Daryle Geweke requested the approval of a Tentative Parcel Map TENTATIVE F,';°CEL to divide 1130 and 1150 South Cherokee Lane into three parts MAP with Parce'. "A" containing 2.11 acres; Parcel "B" containing 2.07 acres; and Parcel "C" containing 3.18 acres in an area 1130 AND 1150 zoned C-2, General Commercial. S. CHEROKEE LANE The Community Development Director introduced the request and D. GEWEKE reviewed a memorandum which indicated that the proposed Parcel Map was at odds with City Policy because it permitted Lloyd and Woodrow Streets to dead-end rather than ending in cul-de-sacs or similar standard street terminous. The Public Works Director outlined the City's street extension policy and stated that the staff could not recommend approval of the Parcel Map because it does not meet the design standards. The following persons were present and spoke in favor of approving the Tentative Parcel Map: 1. Glen 1. Baumbach, c/o Baumbach and Piazza, Consulting Engineers, 323 West Elm Street, Lodi. He stated that his client was opposed to any kind of street extension because it was not economically feasible to pay commer- cial land prices and develop the develop the property residentially. He said that the dead-end streets had existed for 37 years and he doubted that the residences wanted them extended into a commercial area. He indicated that if the maps were approved as submitted the streets would be fenced in an appropriate manner. He said he knew of no problems that the dead-end streets had caused for emergency vehicles. Mr. Baumbach stated that Parcel "C" as shown on the map would be used for a 60 -unit motel and the other two parcels for automobile agencies or related uses. 2. Daryl Geweke, 336 Shady Acres Drive. Lodi. He said that besides losing expensive land the commercial development of the property could add much traffic on the residential streets if they had to be extended. Under general discussion, the Planning Commission reviewed (1) the City's street design standards, and (2) the fact that notices were not mailed to the neighbors. EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 1984 - Page 2 It was moved by Commissioner Lapenta, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman and unanimously passed that the Planning Commission conduct a Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m., Monday, August 27, 1984 in the Ladd City Council Chambers to consider the above described Geweke Parcel Map. • E-X%41(5%T E MINUTES LODI CI►Y PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL MONDAY AUGUST 27, 1984 7:30 P.M. The Planning Commission of the City of Lodi met and was called to order by Chairman Harry Marzolf. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Susan Hitchcock -Akin; Joanne Hoffman; ROLL CALL Michael Lapenta; Larry Mindt; Craig Rasmussen; Roger Stafford; and Chairman Harry Marzolf. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. OTHERS PRESENT: Jack L. Ronsko, Public Works Director; and David Morimoto, Acting Planning Corpmission Secretary. PUBLIC HEAR'NG Chairman Marzolf stated that now was the time and place for the public hearing to consider whether Lloyd Street and Woodrow Street should be extended to the south or deadend at their present terminous approximately 309 feet south of Delores Street. Jack Ronsko, Public Works Director, made the Staff presentation on this matter. Mr. Ronsko briefly restated the Staff position that had been presented to the Commission at a previous meeting. That position was that the developer should be required to con- form to City policy which required an approved method for term- inating or cut -de -sating City streets. He felt that the developer was aware of the City policy, and, therefore, should be required to conform to that policy. Present in the audience, and speaking on this matter, were the following people: 1. Glen Baumbach, of Baumbach and Piazza, Consulting Engineers, 323 West Elm Street, Lodi. Mr. Baumbach presented the Commission with a petition signed by nine residents of the area. The petition expressed the resident's opposition to the extension of Lloyd and Woodrow Streets. Mr. Baumbach stated that he and Mr. Daryl Geweke, owner of the comercial property at the south end of these two streets sympathized with the residents of the area. He stated that he did not believe that the street extension was necessary, and that the street extension would not be in the best interest of the residents of the area. He added, however, that the developer would install the street if required by the City. DETERMINED THAT LLOYD STREET AND WOODROW STREET BE EXTENDED SOUTH TO FORM A LOOP STREET W Minutes - Planning Commission August 27, 1984 page 2 2. Aaron Schmidt. 1130 Lloyd Street, Lodi. Mr. Schmidt explained that he resided at the end of Lloyd Street adjacent to the property in question. He noted -that there was a problem with the current deadend situation because it encouraged people to park illegally at the deadend portion of the street. The cars parked in this location made it difficult for him to back out of his driveway. The presenco of the car in the deadend street also made it difficult for the City street sweeper to clean the end of Lloyd Street. He expressed the desire to have the street extended to alleviate the deadend situation. 3. Barbara Cline, 1106 Woodrow Street, Lodi. Mrs. Cline stated that she and the other residents of the area were primarily concerned about the additional traffic on their streets. They were concerned that if the street were extended and commercial traffic were added to the street, the street would become much more hazardous with the increased traffic volume. 4. Georianne Kirshenman, 1011 Woodrow Street, Lodi. Mrs. Kirshenman stated some of the same concerns as Mrs. Cline. She was also concerned with the type of commercial develop- ment that was proposed for the property to the south. She stated that she and the other residents did not want to have additional motels or a.partments since the existing units in the area were not well maintained in her opinion. 5. Daryl Geweke, 1045 South Cherokee Lane, Lodi. Mr. Geweke stated that he had spoken to as many of the residents of the area as possible, and that it was the almost unani- mous feeling in the area that the streets should not be extended. He noted that it was his experience with his own dealership across Cherokee Lane that comm-trcial traffic did impact surrounding residential streets. He stated that he did not feel that neither his property nor the neighborhood would benefit by the extension of the street. Mr. Geweke further explained that present plans were to put a motel on Parcel C, and auto related businesses on Parcels A and B. The members of the Planning Conrnission and members of the audience then directed a number of questions to City Staff regarding this matter. The questions generally dealt with the possible location of the proposed street, the possible design of the proposed street, and whether or not the commercial property to the south would have vehicular access Minutes - Planning Commission August 27, 1984 to the street. Mr. Ronsko stated that one possibility would be to construct a loop street adjacent to.the existing residences connecting Woodrow and Lloyd Street. The exact dimensions and design of the street could be worked out between the City and the developer and would depend in part upon such things as the width of the travel lanes, whether on -street parking were re- quired on one or both sides of the street, and whether side- walks were required on one or both sides of the street. Mr. Ronsko felt that all of these problems could be worked out between the Public Works Staff and the developer. As to whether commercial property should have access to this street, Mr. Ronsko stated that if the Planning Commission determined that commercial access to the street would be detrimental they could, in fact, deny access to the street. Mr. Baumbach questioned this statement and asked whether the City could, in fact, require the developer to install curb, gutter and sidewalks as well as the street, and then deny him access to that street. Mr. Ronsko felt that the City could, in fact, do this. There was also a question about what type of buffering could be installed between the commercial and residential properties. Staff indicated that the type of buffering would depend, in part, upon the type of development proposed for the commercial property; however, generally speaking, a 7' fence was normally required for commercial and residential properties as well as possibly some landscaping. These parcels would also be re- viewed by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee when they are developed. After a lengthy discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Hitchcock -Akin to require the construction of a loop street connecting Woodrow and Lloyd Streets. The street would be located adjacent to the existing residential lots, however, it would be moved far enough south to provide the two end lots with a 10' street side yard. Commissioner lapenta then offered an amendment to the motion. His amendment was that the developer and City staff meet to come up with a suitable design for the street. The parties should make every effort in the street design to minimize the amount of commercial property utilized. Commissioner Hoffman then added a second amendment to the motion. Her amendment was to deny all commercial access to the new street. C.y'..N tTav r "'F." page 3 1 Exu %z %-t Minutes - Planning Commission August 27, 1984 page 4 Commissioner Hitchcock -Akin agreed to the amendments to her motion and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Lapenta. The Commis- sion, on a roll call vote, defeated the motion on a vote of 4 to 3 as follows: AYES: Commissioners Hitchcock -Akin; Hoffman; Lapenta. NOES: Commissioners Mindt; Rasmussen; Stafford and Marzolf. A second motion was made by Commissioner Rasmussen to allow the existing deadend streets to remain and to simply place an appropriate buffer between the commercial and the residential properties. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Mindt. On a roll call vote, the motion failed on a vote of 3 to 4 as follows: AYES: Commissioners Mindt; Rassmussen; and Stafford. NOES: Commissioners Hitchcock -Akin; Hoffman; Lapenta, Marzolf. A third motion was made by Chairman Marzolf requiring that the loop street extension connecting Lloyd and Woodrow Streets be required with the stipulation that any commercial access to the new street would require specific approval by the Planning Commission. Th's motion was seconded by Commissioner Hitchcock - Akin. On a ro, call vote this motion was approved by a 4 to 3 vote as follows: AYES: Commissioners Hitchcock -Akin; Hoffman; Lapenta; and Marzolf. NOES: Commissioners Mindt; Rasmussen and Stafford. Following this hearing Chairman Marzolf-called a 5 -minute RECESS rmraet Y Oyrf . K/J0.1ro.✓ jr s s7, A , i q• � n r • O a � �k G 0 c . K/J0.1ro.✓ jr s s7, , i R I✓.70.f/o.✓ � u SI -I 0 tJ - :�' o City of Lodi FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS STATION 210 WEST ELM STREET LOD1. CALirORNIA 95240 (209) 3336735 Honorable Mayor sad members of the City Council: September 10, 1984 Writing in regards to the joining of Woodrow and LloydStreets, which is being appealed by Mr. Darryl Geweke, developer of the adjacent property. The City of Lodi Uniform Fire Code is explicit in stating the provi- sions for roadways and adequate turn -&rounds to allow fire apparatus access for fire fighting purposes. These are minimum standards based on fire fighting experience and fire apparatus needs to approach a fire scene. The Fire Code reads in Section 10.207 (a) Required Construction. Every building hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of access roadwayo with all-weather driving surface of not leas than 20 feet of unobstructed width, with adequate roadway turning, radius cap%ble of supporting the imposed loads of Sire apparatus and having a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance. Dead-end fire department access roads in excess of 150 feet lona shall be provided with approved provisions for the turnin , around of fire deaartmentapparatus. Connection of Lloyd and Woodrow Streets with a properly designed road- way would meet the Fire Coda requirements. S* erely, Doa MacLeod, Fire Chief CC: H. Glaveu, CH Public Works TO: THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE SECT: Appeal of Daryl`Geweke re joining Woodrow and Lloyd Streets In response to a request from Jack Ronsko, Public Works Director, as to input on the termination of Lloyd and Woodrow Streets to a retaining wall ..... Over the past years the Police Department has received numerous complaints (particularly from the residents on Lloyd Street) re- garding the parking of vehicles in the area of the dead end of Lloyd Street where it now goes into a vacant field. The major complaint is that cars park in that area, not allowing residents access to the street from their private driveways due to the lack of a turning radius. 1 feel that if we terminate the street, as proposed by Geweke, this problem will be compounded and I would be opposed to any termination other than a cul-de-sac or a connecting street from Lloyd to Woodrow. Respectfully submitted, Floyd A. Williams Chief of Police FAN: jkm �..r(yy..f'Ye1 '6411eF}F�i.LiEl2 •.. yN' ..,�ae�iL+b'.Bd�tR .. ii&i:li'uvY�3v:`•••.•_•.•�•� NOTICE OF PUBLIC RMING BY THE CITY CI EWIL OF THE CITY OF LCDI ID CC'NS IM THE PLANNING C OSU SS I ON' S R1 WMMW ICN 711AAT THE BATCH PARCEL BE PREXM TD P-D (26), PIA40 DEVEIMW DISTRICT NO. 26 WITH THB SINGLE -FAMILY PCUICN WFCI MING 10 ME CITY'S R-2, SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND THE NMTIPLE FAMILY PCRTICNS OWUMING TD THE CITY'S R-GA, GAFUN APAR'IlI+I W RES IMCIAL REUMICTICNS WITH A LIMITATICN OF 15 t NITS PER ACRE. NOTICE IS IiERMY GIVEN that on Wednesday, October 3, 1984, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the Lodi City Council will conduct a public hearing in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California, to consider the Planning Camission's recarmendation that the Batch parcel be prezoned to P -D (26), Planned Development District No. 26 with the Single -Family portion conforming to the City's R-2, Single -Family Residential District and the h1ultiple Family portions conforming to the City's R -GA, Garden Apartment Residential restrictions with a limitation of 15 units per acre. The Batch development 325 single-family lots, 2 multiple -family parcels containing 246 units and a 14 acre basin/park site. An elementary school may be substituted for one of the multiple family sites. Information regarding this item may be obtained in the office of the Cannunity Development Director at 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California. All interested persons are invited to present their views either for or against the above proposal. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein and oral statements may be made at said hearing. Dated: September 19, 1984 By Order of the City Council A. A -AW& Alice M. Reimche City Clerk