HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - October 3, 1984 PHPUBLIC HEARINGS Notice thereof having been published in accordance with law
and affidavit of publication being on file in the office of
EXTE S IQ4 OF LUIM the Cit Clerk h% :
� Aiv� Y yor Snider called for the Public Hear.ng
STRM AM t o consider der the appeal of Daryl Geweke , 1045 South Cherol.4e
�.� Lane, I10di, of the Lodi City Planning Cmmission's
5 eto
determination that there was a need to extend Lloyd Stree
and Woodrow Street south in order to eliminate the existi
de,,dend situation on these streets in conformance with City
Street Standards.
The matter was introduces by Public Works Director Ronsko
who gave an indepth background presentation including the
presentation of diagrams of the subject area.
The following persons addressed the Council regarding the
mutter:
a) Mr. Aaron Schmidt, 1130 Lloyd Street, Lodi
b) Eni l Schmierer, 1130 W odrow, Lodi
c) Glen Baurrbach , of Baurbach & Piazza, Consulting
Engineers, 323 West Elm Street, Lodi
There being no other persons wishing to give testimony, the
public portion of the hearing was closed.
A lengthy discussion followed with questions regarding the
matter being presented to Staff and to those persons who had
given testimorry.
On motion of Council Nlermber Hinchman, Olson second, because
of the uniqueness of the situation, Council determined that
there shall be a looped street between Lloyd and Woodrow
Streets; providing for a 5' sidewalk on the north side; a
28' paved travel way with no parking on both the north and
south sides; a 7' block wall fence to oe -:snstructed along
the south side of the looped street. The fences is to be a
minimum of 2' frer the curbing on the south side of the
looped street.
The motion carried by uianimous vote.
9
9
CITY OF LODI
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
T0: City Council
FROM: City Manager
DATE: September 11, 1984
SUBJECT: Geweke Appeal
Woodrow b Lloyd Street Ext,�nsions
f.
COUNCIL COTvIMUNICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That t'�e City (b unci1 review the background information on
this matter and after 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 19 7. 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
rennin 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 Subdivision 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-s.ac.
In October of 1383, Geweke Ford inquired how their parcel might be developed.
The Commun;ty Cevelopment Director and myself put together a ratter dated Octo-
ber 26, 1983, which included many possible combinations of street extensions
and terminations. li,is letter is attached as Exhibit A.
In August of this year, the Preliminary Parcel Map attached as Exhibit B, was
submitted by Geweke to the City for processing. This par:.el 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 b'.ock 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: I FILE N0.
HEN�f A. GLAVES. C tv Manager
r_2
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 s ince
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 the 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 based on the actual develop-
ment use and the requirements of SPARC. After the Planning 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 Planninq 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 :o Not Providing for Street Extensions or Standard
TerminatTnn
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 cf 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.
City Council
September 11, 1984
Page 3
It is the staff's position that the Punning Commission's decision should be
upheld and the appeal denied and that a reasonable looping or termination of
the street W ked out with the developer's engineer.
k4u,
a ck Ronsko
ubl i Works Director
Att meets
cc: Fire Dept.
Po 1 i ce Dept.
JLR/eeh
t r •: I : 1• • •• •: 1 1
0 so
1 ' • • IN • 4:0 I• • •. 1 • 1
•• • . r; a• • 1a•+
•'+1 a' • � 1 1 � F i a • •
••
Me a. •+.� • '•' •• • 1'+9t
•• is • /• i •• ' • ' � 1
• • t• at • : 1•+ r a, Ir
1,UrICE IS ICY GIVEN that on Wednesday, September 19, 1984
at the hour of 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be
heard, the Lodi City Planning Curmission will conduct a Public Hearing
in the Chambers of the Lodi City GiunciI at 221 West Pine Street,
Lodi, California, to consider the appeal of Daryl Geweke, 1045 South
Cherokee Lame, Lodi, of the Lodi Planning Carmissions determination
that there was a need to extend Lloyd Street and ►tioodrow Street south
in order to eliminate the existing deadend situation on these streets
in conformance with City street standards. 'Ihe Planning C'annission
will require thst the developer of the cannercial property to the
south construct an east -west street to form a loop street connecting
Lloyd and Woodrow Streets. The Planning Carmission also required that
there be an appropriate buffer between the camrercial and residential
properties and that all commercial access to the new street be to the
approval of the Commission. City staff was directed to work with the
developer to came up with a mutually agreeable street design.
Information regarding this item may be obtained in the
office of the Corm,mity 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
fiw A -4AM'r,& *
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
September 17, 1984
�i V 3:;
tj
SEP 17 P11 2: 4 G
AUCE ;� �
ERn
CT
Ms. Alice Reimche
City Clerk
City of Lodi
Lodi, CA 95240
Re: Application No.
Dear Ms. Reimche:
In order to have time to consider the various engineering
aspects of the development of our property on Cherokee Lane,
we request that you continue Wednesday night's hearing
for two weeks. Thank you.
Very truly yours,= -�
iU
To: The City Planning Commission
Regarding: Property and Appeal of D. Geweke
RECEIVED
S'M St#• I §98h 3 5 7
ALICE M. REiMCHE
CITY CLERK
CITY C; i C�j
Dear Sirs:
Although I cannot attend this meeting I would like my
opinion known.
Originally , when this issue was brought before the
public I was in favor of a wall blocking the end of Woodrow
and Lloyd Streets. However, I can understand how a connect-
ing street, at the south end would be necessary especially
for emergency vehicles. I agree with this decision primarily
since there will still be a wall built to separate the com-
mercial development from the residential.
In regards to D. Geweke•s appeal, I hope you stand by
the original decision that there be no access road available
to the commercial property from the south end of Lloyd and
Woodrow Streets. There is already access from Cherokee Lane
to the property. I also hope that the decision holds not to
have duplexes built at the south end of those streets. These
are well established, older homes and older residents. I just
do not feel duplexes would be benificial for this community.
Sincerely,
k
UN CIL COMMUNICATIO]a"
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL DATE NO.
FROM: THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE September 10, 1984
SUBJECT: Appeal of Daryl Geweke re joining Woodrow and Lloyd Streets
RECEIVED
,SEP 10 PIA3,55
-'EIV41iE
CITY CILM
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
NCIL COMMUNICATIO A
DATE NO.
September 10, 1984
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Daryl Geweke re joining Woodrow and Lloyd Streets
In response to a request from Jack Ronsko, Publit- 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
FAW : j km
F`1
City of Lodi
FIRE DEPARTMENT
HEADQUARTERS STATION
210 WEST ELM STREET
LOD1. CALIFORNIA 95240
(209) 333-6735
Honorable Mayor and
members of the City Council:
11
Sfiptember 10, 194
Writing in regards to the joining of Woodrow and LloydStreets, which
is being appealed by Mr. Darryl Go -woke, develoy*r of the adjacent property.
The City of Lodi Uniform Fire Code is explicit in stating the provi-
sions for roadways and adequate turn-arounds to allow fire apparatus aecetes
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 readis in Sect -an 10.207 (a) Required Construction.
Every building hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department
apparatus by way of access roadwrys with all-weather driving surface of riot
less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, with adequate roadlray turning radius
capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus and having a
minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance. Doan -end fire department
access roads in excess of 1,50 feet long shall bR provided with approved
arovisions 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.
S *rely,
mn MacLeod,
Fire Chief
CC: H. alavee, CM
Public Works
FIL nie"
V
Ek AUG3(KA-JW'4': t: 5
ALICE H. REINCHI:
CITY CLERK
C'7Y ln•: ;'
August 31, 1984
Alice Reirrehe
City Clerk
Lodi, California 95240
11
AM * Remmit -1
I, Daryl Geweke, long time Lcdi resident and one of
Lodis' largest cmtributors of the citys' coffers, would like
to appeal the decision of the Lodi Planning Cannission.
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 7'yely,
'-
Dar
President
W -M11491
Leasing - Sales - Service - Lodi 20900* -4725 - Stcck:on 2C9!4e6-8571 0 1045 S. Cherokee Lane - UJI, CA 95240
October 26, 198;
Gewake Ford
1045 S. Cherokee lane
Lodi, CA 95240
Attention: Larry Geweke
Gentlemen:
40 E.NC N l>s rr , A.'
SUBJECT: Parcel Development on Cherokee lane Opposite Poplar Street
Per your roc+nest, the Community Developeant and myself have laid out a
few eoncapts for the development of the subject parcel. Copies of thesi
concepts are enclosed. It should be noted that based on what your tactual
development plans are with respect .0 land use, there are many variations
of the concepts enclosed. Ali. GR -rased is correspondence related to
this parcel development when It was ow -no: by Sanborn.
I have also enclosed a copy of a form which we IF 10 out for prospective
developers which Is a preliminary check list related to City require-
ments. This sheat is commonly called the "Pink Sheet." Once you have a
better feel for the type of land use and =,Ing you prefer, we would be
happy to 1111 out a pink sheet for your parcel.
If you have any Questions concerning the development of the subject parcei,
please contact M.
Sincerely
Jack L. 'kraako
Public kbrks Director
Enclosures
JWns
t
L
z !,
r
�
�
for
�
�
O
8
1,.,!
o
ilk�
t
PARCEI,
PARCELfLAST
PRELIMINARY
PARCEL MAP
TE TO COMMEN�6 Q 6
ou
Wsus'
} _
W c
--�
��
PARCEL 08
�,
��fip�7 0!' frit Sovfh
•s%s� gtvrsfv oy' Sec /icw. 7
r
LOOy/�SO/! ✓OD�I/ii7 �ounfy
V
f'�ijrotcL �irrf
A Lbirir/ lsew.!te
i
Go/ate �on►ar/ sonbom ��✓�e/ii � �ie�ar�d By; �
I s
MEMDRUMM, City of Lodi, Publ is Works Department
TO: Community Development Director
FROM: Public WoW Director
DATE: August 6, 1$84
SUBJECT: GwAsM Tentative Parcel Map (N-8�•!?)
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-
way dedication of same.
A past !Tanning 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 Manning Commission and
City Council. Attached is it 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 condition of approval of this tentative parcel map.
Jack L. bnsko
Public Works Director
At tacMnen t s
cc: Do rre i l Geweke
JUVesh
r
W
EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 1984
Daryle Geweke requested the approval of a Tentative Parcel Map
to divide 1130 and 1150 South Cherokee Lane into three parts
with Parcel "A" containing 2.11 acres; Parcel "B" containing
2.07 acres; and Parcel "C" containing 3.18 acres in an area
zoned C-2, General Commercial.
The Community Development Director introduced the request and
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 !A milar standard street termin.3us.
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 I. 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
knee. 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.
E-A 1 is %--c 'A p
TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP
1130 AND 1150
S. CHEROKEE LANE
D. GEWEKE
It was moved by Commissioner Lapenta, seconded by Commissioner
Hoffman and unanimously passed that the Planning Conrnission conduct
a Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m., Monday, August 27, 1984 in the Lodi
City Council Chambers to consider the above described Geweke Parcel
Map.
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 Conrnission conduct
a Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m., Monday, August 27, 1984 in the Lodi
City Council Chambers to consider the above described Geweke Parcel
Map.
Ex14la%T " E "
MONDAY
MINUTES
LODI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL
AUGUST 27, 1984
The Planning Commission of the City of Lodi met and was called
to order by Chairman Harry Marzo)f.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Susan Hitchcock -Akin; Joanne Hoffman;
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 Commission Secretary.
PUBLIC HEARING
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 ter inous 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 Coamission 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 cul-de-sacing 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 commercial
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.
7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
DETERMINED THAT
LLOYD STREET AND
WOODROW STREET
BE EXTENDED SOUTH
TO FORM A LOOP
STREET
Minutes - Planning Commission
August 27, 1984
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 presence 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 apartments 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 commercial
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 Commission 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
E1C1'1 r, t31'T w E �
page 2
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 Floyd 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 ca,rnercial 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.
Ex" kavr " E".
page 3
t
Minutes - Planning Commission
August 27, 1984
E-1, " 1B%i u E. N
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;
Marzotf.
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. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Hitchcock -
Akin. On a roll 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 A4arzolf'ca Mnd a 5 -minute RECESS
recess.
......___....___ ._.� .. a.r�rm wttsuavwti✓�id�llru.wue.n.o............�..�... �_..-�. _ , �o-R.�€..r"
w
e.
11
0
r`
w
e.
11
• C) EYu4 % %%-r " C:)
City of Lodi
FIRE DEPARTMENT
HEADQUARTERS STATION
210 WEST ELM STREET
LODI- CALIFORNIA 95240
!2091 333.6735
Honorable Mayor aad
members of the City Council:
September 10, 1984
Writing in regards to the joining of Woodrow and iloydStreets, which
is being appealed by Mr. Darryl aeweke, developer of the adjacent property.
The City of Lodi Oaifom Fira Code is explicit in stating the provi-
siona for roadways and adequate turn-arounda 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
lose than 20 feet of unobstructed width, with adequate roadwal tural radius
capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus and having a
minimum of 13 feet 6 inchos of vertical clearance. Dead-end fire department
access roads in excess of 1,150 feet lonK shall be provided with approved
prorisiona 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.
S erely,
Don MacLeod,
Fire Chief
CC: H. Glavea, CM
Public Morita
....:_.._n....._.....�.�,��:�.��.�,...,...�. as
CAT TNCIL COAMUNICATIOI �x►.a�Q�-� " �-1 "
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL DATE NO.
FROM: THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE September 10, 1984
SUBJECT: Appeal of Daryl Geweke re
Pp y 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
FAW: j km