HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 7.A 01/23/2006CITY OF PETALUNIA, CALIFORNIA TA
AGENDA BILL January 23, 20.)6
Agenda Title: Consideration of an Appeal by Miller, Stan- & Regalia, Meeting Date: January 23, 2006
Representing hi -N -Out Burger, of the Planning Commission's Decision Note: This item is continued from
to Denying a Sign Variance for an In -N -Out Borger Restaurant at 1010 N01"ber2l, 2005
Lakeville Highway, APN 005-060-015, 038, File # 05 -APL -0658 -CR,
(Moore/Boyle).Meeting Time: El 3:00 PM
7:00 PM
Cateeory (check one): ❑ Consent Calendar 0 Public Hearing ❑ New Business
❑ Unfinished Business ❑ Presentation
Department: Director: Contact Person: Phone Number:
Community Mike Moor Phil Boyle, Asso to 778-4301
Development Director Planner
Cost of Proposal: N/A l Account Number: N/A
Amount Budeeted: N/A Name of Fund: N/A
Attachments to Aeenda Packet Item:
1. Project Location Map.
2. Planning Commission Staff Report, excluding attachments, and minutes of the October 11, 2005
Public Hearing.
3. Letters of appeal from the applicant dated January 10, 2005 and October 24, 2005.
4. Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Staff Report, excluding attachments, and minutes of
the April 22, 2004 Public Hearing.
5. Portions of Section 21-204 Petaluma Zoning Ordinance.
6. Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding the 10/11/05 Decision of the Planning Com.
Summary Statement:
The applicant is appealing the unanimous decision made by the Planning Commission on October 11,
2005, which was the denial of a sign area variance. The variance was requesting approximately 56 square
feet of sign area in addition to the 43 square feet permitted by the City's Zoning Ordinance. The
Commission was unable to make any of the findings that are required to approve a variance. The findings
are:
1. That there are peculiar and unusual conditions inherent in the property sufficient to cause a hardship
and such conditions are not common to all or most of the properties in the immediate area.
2. That the proposed parcel creates a hardship that is unique and can be remedied or mediated by the
approval of a variance.
3. That property rights are being denied or restricted by the location, configuration or any other aspect
of the project property.
4. That the authorizing of such variance will be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will
materially impair the purposes of this Ordinance or the public interest.
On January 10, 2005 the applicant submitted a letter amending the square footage of sign area requested.
The applicant is now seeking approval of a total sign area of eighty (80) square feet. If the council chooses
to uphold the proposed appeal and grant the variance, all the above findings must be made. A staff analysis
of each of these findings can be found beginning on page 3, Variance Findings, of this report.
Recommended City Council Action/Sueeested Motion:
Adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the
variance for additional sign area at 1010 Lakeville I (In -N -Out Burger Restaurapt).
Review by Ad Svcs. Dir- -q Reviewed byaik,ttornev: Anny0,yA-Vv City Manaeer:
(Date: /111(04, e: `���..,= Date:
Today's Date: Revision # and Date Revised: File cpde:
December 12, 2005 # s:\CC-City Council\Reports\Revised In -N -Out
Si4m Variance Appeal 1010 Lakeville CC.doc
I
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 23, 2006
AGENDA REPORT
FOR APPEAL OF SIGN VARIANCE DENIAL FOR
IN -N -OUT BURGER RESTAURANT
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The applicant is appealing the decision made the Planning Commission on October 11, 2005
denying a variance for addition sign area at the hi -N -Out Burger Restaurant at 1010 Lakeville Hwy
(See Attachment 1 - Location Map). The Planning Commission unanimously denied the request for
a sign area variance of an additional 56 square feet based on their inability to make any of the
required findings. The Planning Commission also made the determination as to how the ground
floor linear frontage on Lakeville Highway (north elevation) for this particular project shall be
measured. This determination increases the permitted sign area from 43 square feet to 62 square
feet (See Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Staff Report). Subsequently, on January 10, 2006
the applicant amended his request asking from a total sign area of 80 square feet instead on the
original 99 sq. ft. which amounts to a variance of 18 sq. ft.(See Attachment 3—Applicants letter
dated January 10, 2006)
The appeal is based on the grounds that: 1) the parcel is intended to be a shopping center and
therefore the allowable sign area for a shopping center should be applied, 2) that other parcels in the
vicinity have sign areas larger than the area requested by the applicant and 3) that the configuration
of the parcel and the building create a hardship for the applicant in terms of allowable sign area. A
more detailed description of the grounds of the appeal by the applicant is attached (See Attachment
3- Applicant's Notice of Appeal)
2. BACKGROUND:
Approval was granted for a 3,220 sq. ft. In -N -Out Burger drive-through restaurant on April 22,
2004 from the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (See Attachment 4 - SPARC Staff
Report). The SPARC Hearing did not include the review or approval of signs. Following approval
of the building permit the applicant submitted for a sign permit which exceeded the total sign area
permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. This permit was denied by staff and the applicant subsequently
filed for a variance. The variance was denied by the Planning Commission and the applicant has
appeal that decision to the City Council.
The permitted sign area for the 3,220 sq. ft. restaurant, based on the Planning Commission's
October 11, 2005 determination, is 62 square feet. This area is based on Section 21-204.6 of the
City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance which allows one (1) square foot of sign area for every ground
level linear foot of building frontage (See Attachment 5- Portions of Section 21-204 Petaluma
Zoning Ordinance). The area of a sign is defined as the smallest rectangle enclosing the total
exterior surface of a sign. The approval or denial of a sign permit is not discretionary; it is a direct
relationship between building frontage and sign area. With the revised area as determined by the
Planning Commission, the applicant in effect is now requesting approximately 38 square feet of
sign area in addition to the 62 square feet permitted, for a total sign area of approximately 80 square
feet or 18 sq. ft. more then all other commniercial uses not on a corner lot or within a shopping center.
The two signs proposed for the project are a monument sign which is 20 feet in height and has an
area of 42 sq. ft. and a wall mounted sign facing Lakeville Hwy. which is f 14 feet in height and
has an area of 38 sq. ft. The table below summarizes the approximate pennitted and requested sign
areas.
Building Frontage on Lakeville Hwy.
62 Linear Feet
(as determined by the Planning Commission)
Permitted Sign Area per City Code
62 Sq. Ft.
Approved Sign Area (Momm-nent Sign)
42 Sq. Ft.
Additional Sign Area Requested (Wall Sip)
38 Sq. Ft.
Sign Area Requested by Variance
18 Sq. Ft.
Total Sign Area if Variance is Granted
80 Sq. Ft.
Variance Findings
The Zoning Ordinance defines a variance as a grant of relief from the requirements of the ordinance
which permits constriction in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by this ordinance. The
purpose of the variance is to allow variation from the strict application of the terms of this
Ordinance where by reason of the exceptional narrowness, shallowness, o- unusual shape of a
parcel of property on the effective date of this Ordinance; or by reason of exceptional topographic
conditions, or other extraordinary situation at- condition of such parcel; or by reason of the use or
development of property) immediately adjoining the parcel in question, the literal enforcement of the
requirennents of this Ordinance would involve practical difficulties or would cause undue hardship
umnecessau7, to cane out the spirit and purpose of this Ordinance. In no case shall a variance be
granted to permit a use other than a use permitted in the district in which the property in question is
situated.
23
24 All of the following findings must be made for the City Council to grant the appeal and approve the
25 variance.
26
27 Finding 1: There must be peculiar and unusual conditions inherent in the propert), in question
28 sufficient to cause a hardship and that such conditions are not conation to all or most of the
29 properties in the immediate area.
30
31 Staff Analysis: The 1.3 acre project parcel is a typical lot (approximately 198 feet wide by
32 200 feet deep) for the area and was created by the applicant through a lot line adjustment in
33 March 2005. The lot has direct access to Lakeville Hwy. as well as access to the new
34 Caulfield Lane Extension via a private access easement, which is not defined as a frontage.
35 The two private access easements one via Caulfield Lane and the other through the adjacent
36 parcel to the east (Hammer Marine) were proposed by the project applicant and not required
37 by the City.
38
39 Finding 2: That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists.
40 In this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring
41 violations are not hardships juslif ging a variance.
42
43 Staff Analysis: There is no hardship to the property owner that is unique to this parcel and
44 that has not been created by any act of the owner. The "hardship" stated by the applicant — the
45 denial of additional sign area beyond what is permitted — relates only of the applicant's desire
46 for additional signage. The sign regulations in effect apply to the subject property as well as to
47 any comparable commercial site in the City. In addition, the subject site was actually created
I by an act of the applicant to accommodate the approved use. The applicable sign regulations
2 for this site were clear at the time the applicant tools this action.
3 Finding 3: That such variance is neeessarl, for the preservation and erjoynnent of substantial
4 property, rights possessed bP other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity, and that
5 a variance, if granted, mould not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not er joved bl,
6 his/her neighbors.
7
8 Staff Analysis: No property rights are being denied or restricted by the location, configuration
9 or any other aspect of the project property in that the sign restrictions imposed on this site are
10 identical to those of neighboring properties. This variance would constitute a special privilege
11 and may lead to other requests for sign area variances because the applicant would be allowed
12 approximately 18 sq. fi. more sign area than neighboring properties.
13
14 Finding d: That the authorizing of such variance shall not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
15 property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this Ordinance or the public interest.
16
17 Staff Analysis: The authorization of this variance will not be detrimental to the adjacent
18 properties. The additional sign will be mounted to the wall of the building in a way which
19 complies with City regulations. The authorization of the variance will, however, be in direct
20 conflict with the purpose of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the sign regulations
21 are to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the City by ensuring that the
22 number, type, size, and design of all signs in Petaluma will not detract from the attractiveness
23 and orderliness of the City's appearance. Itis also designed to protect the general welfare of
24 the merchants and property owners in Petaluma by avoiding wasteful and costly competition
25 among sign users which can result from the uncontrolled use of signs. The authorization of
26 the variance requested may lead to additional applications for variances.
27
28 The applicant has requested a variance based on the grounds that the In -N -Out Burger parcel is
29 intended to be part of a larger "shopping center" and once this "shopping center" is created then
30 additional sign would be allowed. The City's Zoning Ordinance (Section 1-203) defines a shopping
31 center as:
32
33 Shoppine Center. Any combination of five (S) or more separately owned and operated retail
34 businesses on a single or commonly owned or leased panel of land, or a connnercial use or
35 conunercial connplex occupying a site of at least two (2) acres. An existing building situated
36 on a single parcel of land which is converted into separate retail businesses is not for the
37 purpose of this section defined as a shopping center.
38
39 The In -N -Out Burger Restaurant is located on a single parcel. The three adjacent parcels are not
40 currently owned by the applicant and there is currently no application for the creation of a shopping
41 center at this site on file with the City of Petaluma. Staff would suggest that if the applicant is
42 working to create a shopping center that the issue of appropriate sign area be deferred to that time
43 when the shopping center is actually in existence. Sign programs for shopping centers are allowed
44 by Section 21-204.68 of the Zoning Ordinance.
45
46
47 3. ALTERNATIVES:
48
49 a. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision denying the variance. This
50 action will require adoption of the attached resolution (Attachment 6).
51
52 b. Grant the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and make all of the necessary
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
findings to approve the variance for an additional 38 square feet of sign area and direct staff to
draft a resolution stating such for council approval.
4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
The applicant has paid the $170 appeal fee and is responsible for any additional costs associated
with processing the appeal to the City Council, pursuant to Resolution 2004-028 N.C.S.
5. CONCLUSION:
Staff believes that the Planning Commission decision should be upheld based on the inability to
make the required findings of Section 26-300 Variances.
6. RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the variance for additional
sign area based on the findings in the attached draft resolution (Attachment 6 - Draft Resolution
Denying the Appeal).
5
g7�dadd:jt
ig LAid�s
I
ATTACHMENT 1 0
'tom'-''. pp��
El
I
yr @ r
C@
Cn
O
O
a
mL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
Conummiiit3, Denelopa+ent Department, PlamnimgDh,isimy 11 English Street, PL'tahnma, CA 94952
(707) 778-4301 Fns (707) 778-4498 E-mail: planningCci.petahnna.ca. its
DATE: October 11, 2005 AGENDA ITEM NO.1
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Phil Boyle, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: PROPOSED VARIANCE TO THE CITY OF PETALUMA ZONING
ORDINANCE, SECTION 21-204 - SIGNS AND SIGN STRUCTURES, TO
ALLOW 56 SQUARE FEET OF SIGN AREA IN ADDITION TO THE 43
SQUARE FEET PERMITTED.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the request for a variance to Section 21 -204 -
Signs and Sign Structures of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance on the basis that the required findings
can not be made. A draft resolution denying the variance has been provided (See Attachment A -
Draft Resolution Denying the Variance).
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project: 1010 Lakeville St. In -N -Out Burger Variance
Project Planner: Phil Boyle, Associate Planner
Project Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Size:
Ron Volle
In -N -Out Burger
13502 Hamburger Way
Baldwin Park, CA 91706
In -N -Out Burger
13502 Hamburger Way
Baldwin Park, CA 91706
1.3 Acres
Site Characteristics: The project site is located on the south side of Lakeville Highway just west
of the southbound Highway 101 ramps (See Attachment B, Location Map). The site is a relatively
flat and the approved 3,220 sq. ft. In -N -Out Burger Restaurant in under construction. The parcels to
the east, west and north of the site across Lakeville Hwy. have retail uses. The parcels to the south
of the site have commercial and industrial uses as well as the Northwest Pacific Railroad Main Line.
Planning Conmiission - 1010 Lakeville Hwy. Sign Variance
1
October 11, 2005
I Existing Use: Approved 3,220 sq. ft. In -N -Out Burger Restaurant Linder construction.
2
3 Proposed Use: The proposed use of an hi -N -Out Burger Restaurant will not change.
4
5 Current General Plan Land Use: Mixed Use within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan
6
7 Proposed General Plan Land Use: Sante
8
9 Current Zoning: Thoroughfare District (D-4) within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan,
10
11 Proposed Zoning: Same
12
13 Subsequent Actions Required: Building/Sign Permit
14
15 PROJECT_ DESCRIPTION _.
16
17 The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from the required sign area at 1010 Lakeville St.
18 The permitted sign area for the 3,220 sq. ft. restaurant is 43 square feet. This area is based on
19 Section 21-204.6 of the City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance which allows one (1) square foot of
20 sign area for every ground level linear foot of building frontage (See Attachment C- Portions of
21 Section 21-204. Note: pertinent sections have been underlined). The applicant is requesting
22 approximately 56 square feet of sign area in addition to the 43 square feet penitted. If the variance
23 is approved the total sign area will be approximately 99 square feet or 2.3 times the area permitted.
24 The two signs proposed for the project are a monument sign which is 20 feet in height and has an
25 area of 42.5 sq. ft. and a wall mounted sign facing Lakeville St. which is f 14 feet in height and has
26 an area of 56.6 sq. ft. The justification for the variance by the applicant is based on the fact that the
27 project is purported to be part of a future shopping center and, therefore, would be allowed
28 additional sign area. This proposal does not include any changes to the building or the site plan
29 (See Attachment F - Project Description, Variance Justification and Plans).
30
31
32 BACKGROUND
33
34 The applicant received approval from the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee (SPARC)
35 for a 3,220 sq. ft. In -N -Out Burger drive-through restaurant on April 22, 2004. Signs are not
36 subject to the purview of SPARC and were not part of the approval. A building permit for the
37 restaurant was issued by the City of Petahuna Building Division in August of this year and the
38 restaurant is currently under construction. The applicant submitted for a sign permit which had a
39 total sign area which exceeded the permitted area. This permit was denied by staff and the
40 applicant subsequently filed for a variance.
41
42
43 STAFF ANALYSIS
44
45 General Plan Consistenev:
46
47 There are only a few references to signs that are relevant to this project in the City's General Plan.
48 One such reference is within Chapter 3 Community Character Program 3 which states "establish
49 specific zoning and/or design guidelines for buildings and signs visible from Highway 101. A
Planning Commission - 1010 Lakeville Hwy. Sign Variance October 11, 2005
1)
I discussion of the specific sign regulations near freeways is addressing below under Zoning
2 Consistency. The General Plan also identifies specific sign requirements for gateways in the
3 conummity. Although this project is directly across from the southbound off ramp of Highway 101
4 it is not identified as a gateway in the current general plan or in the draft general plan update.
7 Zoning Ordinance Consistency:
9 This project is within the Thoroughfare Zoning District (D-4) of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan
10 (CPSP). The CPSP does not have specific language regulating signs therefore defaults to Article 21
11 and 26 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Sign regulations are addressed in two sections of the City
12 of Petahmla Zoning Ordinance. Article 21 - Provisions Applying To Certain Accessory Uses and
13 To All Conditional Uses and Article 26 Administrative Procedure and Permits (See Attachments C
14 and D)
15
16 The purpose of Section 21-204 — Signs and Sign Structures of Article 21 is to protect the public
17 health, safety, and general welfare of the City by ensuring that the number, type, size, and design of
18 all signs in Petaluma will not detract from the attractiveness and orderliness of the City's
19 appearance. It is also designed to protect the general welfare of the merchants and property owners
20 in Petaluma by avoiding wasteful and costly competition among sign users which can result from
21 the rmcontrolled use of signs.
22
23 The maximum permitted sign area on any commercial site is one (1) square foot of sign area for
24 every ground level linear foot of building frontage. The proposed project has 43 linear feet of
25 building frontage on Lakeville St. The building is not on a corner and is not part of a shopping
26 center. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for an additional wall sign of 56.6 sq. ft., see
27 table below.
28
29
Building Frontage on Lakeville Hwy. 43 Linear Feet
Permitted Sign Area 43 Sq. Ft.
Approved Sign Area (Monument Sign) 42.5 Sq. Ft.
Additional Sign Area Requested (Wall Sign) 56.6 Sq. Ft.
Request for Variance 56.1 Sq. Ft.
Total Sign Area if Variance is Granted 99.1 Sq. Ft.
30
31
32 Section 26-911 Sign Permits prohibits a sign which is designed primarily to be viewed from a
33 freeway or the ingress or egress ramps (See Attachment D). The proposed signs and building will
34 be visible from Highway 101 and the southbound Lakeville Hwy. off ramp. However, based on the
35 locations, heights, and sizes of the proposed signs: monument sign — 20 feet high, 42 sq. ft. and the
36 wall mounted sign t 14 feet high, 56 sq, ft. - it is not clear whether or not the signs are intended to
37 be primarily viewed from the freeway or the off -ramp.
38
39
40 Variance Conditions/Findings
41
42 The Zoning Ordinance defines a variance as a grant of relief from the requirements of the ordinance
43 which permits construction in a marmer that would otherwise be prohibited by this ordinance. The
44 purpose of the variance is to allow variation from the strict application of the ternis of this
45 Ordinance where 41, reason of the exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or uouusual shape of a
46 parcel of property on the effective date of this Ordinance; or bli reason of exceptional topographic
47 conditions, or other extraordinary situation or condition of such parcel; or by reason of the use or
48 development ofpropero) immediately adjoining the parcel in question, the literal enforcement of the
49 requirements of this Ordinance would involve practical difficulties or would cause undue hardship
Planning Commission - 1010 Lakeville Hwy. Sign Variance October 11, 2005
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
unnecessmj� to carry out the spirit and purpose of this Ordinance. In no case shall a variance be
granted to permit a use other than a use permitted in the district in which the property in question is
situated.
hl order for the Planning Commission to grant a variance all of the following conditions (findings)
must exist (Attachment D - Section 26-300 - Variances).
Condition/Finding 1: There nnrst be peculiar and unusual conditions inherent in the property in
question sufficient to cause a hardship and that such conditions are not COn1111011 to all or most of
the properties in the immediate area.
Staff Analysis: The 1.3 acre project parcel is a typical lot (approximately 198 feet wide by
200 feet deep) for the area and was created by the applicant through a lot line adjustment in
March of this year. The lot has direct access on Lakeville Hwy. as well as access to the new
Caulfield Lane Extension via a private access easement, which is not defined as a frontage.
There are no conditions of this lot that are uncommon to other lots in the immediate area.
Condition/Finding 2: That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the
owner exists. In this context, personal, fancily or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits,
and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance.
Staff Analysis: There is no hardship to the property owner that is unique to this parcel and
that has not been created by any act of the owner. The "hardship" stated by the applicant — the
denial of additional sign area beyond what is permitted — relates only of the applicant's desire
for additional signage. The sign regulations in effect apply to the subject property as well as to
any comparable commercial site in the City. In addition, the subject site was actually created
by an act of the applicant to accornmodate the approved use. The applicable sign regulations
for this site were clear at the time the applicant tools this action.
Condition/Finding 3: That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial proper0i rights possessed b_y other properties in the scone Zoning district and in the
vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not
enjoyed by his neighbors.
Staff Analysis: No property rights are being denied or restricted by the location, configuration
or any other aspect of the project property in that the sign restrictions imposed on this site are
identical to those of neighboring properties. This variance would constitute a special privilege
and may lead to other requests for sign area variances because the applicant would be allowed
approximately two times more sign area than neighboring properties.
Condition/Finding 4: That the authorizing of such variance shall not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent propero) and will not materially impair the purposes of this Ordinance or the public
interest.
Staff Analysis: The authorization of this variance will not be detrimental to the adjacent
properties. The additional sign will be mounted to the wall of the building in a way which
complies with City regulations. The authorization of the variance will, however, be in direct
conflict with the purpose of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the sign regulations
are to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the City by ensuring that the
number, type, size, and design of all signs in Petaluma will not detract from the attractiveness
and orderliness of the City's appearance. It is also designed to protect the general welfare of
the merchants and property owners in Petaluma by avoiding wasteful and costly competition
among sign users which can result from the uncontrolled use of signs. The authorization of
the variance requested may lead to additional applications for variances and, in turn,
potentially create wasteful and costly competition among other businesses.
Planning Commission - 1010 Lakeville Hwy. Sign Variance
4
October 11, 2005
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The applicant has requested a variance based on the grounds that the In -N -Out Burger parcel is
intended to be part of a larger "shopping center' and once this "shopping center" is created then
additional sign would be allowed. The City's Zoning Ordinance (Section 1-203) defines a shopping
center as:
"Shonnine Center. Any combination of five (5) or more separately owned and operated retail
businesses on a single or commonly owned or leased parcel of land, or a commercial use or
commercial complex occupying a site of at least two (2) acres. An existing building situated
on a single parcel of land which is converted into separate retail businesses is not for the
purpose of this section defined as a shopping center."
The In -N -Out Burger Restaurant is located on a single parcel. The three adjacent parcels are not
currently owned by the applicant and there is currently no application for the creation of a shopping
center at this site on file with the City of Petaluma. Staff would suggest that if the applicant is
working to create a shopping center that the issue of appropriate sign area be deferred to that thne
when the shopping center is actually in existence. Sign programs for shopping centers are allowed
by Section 21-204.6B of the Zoning Ordinance (See Attachment C).
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A notice of this public hearing was published in the Argus Courier on September 28, 2005 and sent
to all residents and property owners within 500 feet of the project site. Since notification of the
public hearing, no written communication has been received.
ENVIRONMENTAL: REVIEW
The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15303 (New Constriction) and Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Resolution Denying the Variance
Attachment B Project Location Map
Attachment C Zoning Ordinance Portions of Section 21-204 - Sign and sign structures. Note:
pertinent sections have been underlined.
Attachment D Zoning Ordinance Section 26-300 — Variances and Section 26-911- Nearest to
Freeways Restricted
Attaclnnent E Project Description and Variance Justification, Site Plan, Context Plan, and
Building Elevations
S:\PC-Planning Commission\Reports\1010 Lakeville In -N -Out Sign Vanance.doc
Planning Commission - 1010 Lakeville Hwy. Sign Variance
5
October 11. 2005
MILLER
STARK
REGALIA&
A PROFESSIONAL
LAW CORPORATION
MICHAEL E. DI GERONISIO
1331 NORTU CALIFORNIA BLvo.
FIPTII FLOOR
P.O. Box 8177
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
FACSIMILE (925) 933-4126
TELEPHONE (925) 935-9400
January 10, 2006
VIA FACSIMILE (707) 778-4554
Honorable Mayor David Glass
c/o City Clerk
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
ATTACHMENT 3
MEDQMSAXWR.CO I
(925)941-1247
Re: City Council Agenda Item _
In -N -Out Burners Siem Variance Anneal; City File No. 05 -VAR 0513 -CR
Dear Mayor Glass:
As you may recall, our firm represents In -N -Out Burgers in connection with the
above -referenced appeal. We understand that the appeal is now set to be heard on January 23,
2006 by the City Council. After due consideration of this matter and in effort to reach a
mutually acceptable resolution of the appeal, In -N -Out Burgers is hereby amending its
application to seek approval of only eighty (80) square feet of signage for its planned Petaluma
restaurant, which is presently under construction (the "Restaurant'). In -N -Out Burgers
appreciates the opportunity to do business in Petaluma and is thus reducing its requested signage
as set forth in the initial sign application by approximately sixteen (16) square feet.
The amended sign application and appeal seek the minimum sign square footage
that In -N -Out now believes it needs to successfully operate the Restaurant.
INOBW2447\648435.1
O WA L N U T C R EE K O W W W. At S A N D R. C D M O PA LO A LTO O
Phil Boyle
January 10, 2006
Page 2
Your consideration of the above is sincerely appreciated.
Very truly yours,
E , ST ®ALIA
Mic a 1 E. eronimo
cc: Mike Bierman, City Manager (via fax 707-778-4419)
Ron Volle
Lorie Brazzill
Phil Boyle
INO11\42447\648475.1
MILLER
STARK
REGALIA&
A PII O F E S S I O N A I.
LA U' C O 111'O It A' 1 10N
MICHAEL E. DIGERONINIO
1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD.
RLFTR FLOOR
P.O. Box 0177
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596
FACSIMILE. (925) 933-4136
TELEPHONE (925) 935-9400
October 24, 2005
Via Hand Delivery
Honorable Mayor David Glass
and Members of the City Council
City of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
M
OCT 2 4 2005
PLANNING DIVISION
MED D MSANUR.com
(925) 941-3247
Re: In -N -Out Burgers Application for Sign Variance; City File No. 05 -VAR
0513 -CR (Appeal)
Dear Honorable Mayor Glass and Members of the City Council:
This office represents In -N -Out Burgers, a California corporation, in connection
with its application for a sign variance in the City of Petaluma. Pursuant to section 26-308.1 of
the City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, this letter shall serve as hi -N -Out Burgers' written
notice of appeal of the City of Petaluma Planning Commission's October 11, 2005 decision
denying In -N -Out Burgers' application for a sign area variance. To clarify the scope of In -N -Out
Burgers' appeal, In -N -Out Burgers specifically appeals only that portion of the Planning
Commission's decision denying the variance application, and does not appeal the Planning
Commission determination regarding the correct method for measuring the frontage of the
project for purposes of determining the allowable sign area. In -N -Out Burgers' specific grounds
for appeal are set forth below.
Pursuant to section 26-300 of the City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, the purpose
of a variance is:
...to allow variation from the strict terms of this Ordinance where
by reason of the exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or unusual
shape of a parcel of property on the effective date of this
Ordinance; or by reason of exceptional topographic conditions, at-
other
rother extraordinary situation or condition of such parcel; or by
reason of the use or development of property inuniediately
adjoining the parcel in question, the literal enforcement of the
requirements of this Ordinance would involve practical difficulties
INOB\42447\639427.1
a W A 1. N 11 T C R E E K a W W W. M S A N D R. C O M 4 P A L O A 1, T D 0
Honorable Mayor David Glass and Members of the City Council
October 24, 2005
Page 2
or would cause undue hardship unnecessary to carry out the spirit
and purpose of this Ordinance.
Because of the extraordinary circumstances applicable to the 1010 Lakeville Street parcel and
the use and/or development of property in the vicinity of the parcel, absent a sign area variance,
In -N -Out Burgers will suffer undue hardship inconsistent with the spirit and purpose of the
City's Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, a sign area variance is not only appropriate, but it is
unquestionably necessary to ensure parity between In -N -Out Burgers and similarly situated
parcels and the business thereon in the City of Petaluma.
Contrary to the determination of the Planning Commission, it is well within the
City's discretion to make all of the findings necessary for a variance under section 26-303 of the
City's Zoning Ordinance:
® 26-303.1 That there are peculiar and unusual conditions inherent in the
location of the property in question sufficient to cause a hardship, and that
such conditions are not common to all or most of the properties in the
immediate area. 11
The parcel on which In -AT Out Burgers is located is intended to be, and will in
the fiaure be part of a larger "shopping center. " At the present time, the
existing WaterSavers tenant has refused to relocate and has therefore
temporarily delayed development of the center as a whole. Notwithstanding
that the entire center could not be developed at the sanze time, In -N -Out
Burgers proceeded with development, and has requested a variance to allow
placement of one standard size sign oil the building fafade. The requested
sign would be allowed as of right in a "shopping center," and subsequent to
the expiration of the WaterSavers lease, and designation of the property as a
"shopping center, " In -N -Out Burgers will be entitled to erect the requested
sign. It is peculiar and unusual that the property on which In -N -Out Burgers
is located is unable, at this time, to be designated as a shopping center, and
this lack of shopping center designation has created an undue hardship in that
In -N -Out Burgers may not erect any thing close to adequate or customary
signage or signage enjoyed by adjacent or nearby businesses. In the vicinity
of the In -N -Out Burgers project, other business operators ( including, but not
limited to, McDonald's and Chevron /Market Gas Station) maintain signage,
or have been granted signage rights, well in excess of what In -N -Out Burgers
has requested.
Wide the City will not presently ascribe "shopping center" status to the
parcel on which In -N -Out Burgers is located, the City has for all practical
purposes treated the parcel as if it were located within a shopping center.
The City required In -N -Ont Burgers to burden its parcel with access
INOB\42447\639427.1
Honorable Mayor David Glass and Members of the City Council
October 24, 2005
Page 3
easements to allow for traffic circulation between the In -N -Out Burgers
restaurant and adjacent parcels. The City has also required such easements
from the owner of the gas station parcel. Such reciprocal easements are
conunuon in shopping centers, and it is both peculiar and unusual that the City
has required the burdens of its shopping center designation be placed on the
In -N --Out Burgers' parcel without allowance for any of the associated
benefits.
The configuration of the In -N -Out Burgers' parcel is also such that due to
safety concerns and building layout issues that In -N -Out Burgers cannot
locate its proposed building in such a way as to allow for adequate signage,
or anything close to the permitted signage of nearby properties. Hence, a
variance needs to be granted to it as requested.
26-303.2 That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act
of the owner exists. In this context, personal, family or financial difficulties,
loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships
justifying a variance.
But for the fact that the property on which In -N -Out Burgers is located is the
first parcel to develop in what will eventually become a "shopping center, "
In -N -Out Burgers would be entitled to erect its standard signage without a
variance. In -N -Out Burgers has not caused the subject hardship to exist.
Additionally, as noted above, the present design of the In -N -Out Burger
restaurant avoids a drive-thru lane fronting on Lakeville Highway, a safet)r
issue raised by the Citv's design review committee. Had In -N -Oat Burgers
been able to design and sit the building with the widest portiolt of its
building facing the street, In -N -Out Burgers would have been entitled, as of
right, to virtually all of its requested signage.
® 26-303.3 That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning
district and in the vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute
a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
The right to erect adequate signage is a valuable property right that In -N -Out
Burgers is presently being denied by the City, even though other businesses
located in the near vicinity of the In -N -Out Burgers' project enjoy the
privilege which In -N -Out Burgers requests through its variance application.
INOa\42447\639427.1
Honorable Mayor David Glass and Members of the City Council
October 24, 2005
Page 4
■ 26-303.4 That the authorizing of such variance shall not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of
this ordinance or the public interest.
Both the planning commission and staff recognized that the granting of the
requested variance to In -N -Out Burgers will not cause a substantial
detriment to any adjacent parcel or materially impair the public interest or
the purposes of the City ofPetahana Municipal Code. In fact, granting a
variance will actually ensure that automobiles on Lakeville Highway are able
to property identify the building from an appropriate and safe distance ativay
to malce the proper signals and movements necessary to safely exit and enter
the roadway.
For the reasons set forth above, In -N -Out Burgers respectfully requests the City
Council to overturn the October 11, 2005 decision of the Planning Commission and approve In -
N -Out Burgers' application for a sign area variance. In -N -Out Burgers looks forward to
discussing this matter further with the City Council. Please feel free to contact the undersigned
should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further prior to the date a public
hearing is scheduled.
Very truly yours,
MILLER, iT rREGALIA
Mi hael E..DiGeronimo
MED:je
cc: Claire Cooper, City Cleric (via fax (707) 778-4554)
Ron Volle
Raymund Villanueva
MOB\42447\639427.1
ATTACHMENT 4
I CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
2 MEMORANDUM
4 Community Development Department, Planting Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, C4 94952
5 (707) 778-4301 Fax (707) 778-4498 E-mail: platuting(gci.petalttnta.c'a.us
6
7
8 DATE: April 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM NO.IV
9
Io TO: Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
I1
12 FROM: Phil Boyle, Associate Planner
13
14 SUBJECT: Request for approval of site, architectural and landscaping plans to construct a
15 3,220 square foot drive through restaurant at 1006 and 10101 Lakeville Hwy.
16 APN's 005-060-015 and 038; File #i 03 -SPC -0580 -CR
17
18
19 RECOMMENDATION
20
21 Staff has reviewed the proposal and concludes that it is generally consistent with the Central
22 Petaluma Specific Plan. Staff has also identified several issues that are in potential conflict with
23 the adopted Smart Code, Zoning Ordinance and/or previous preliminary SPARC direction (see
24 discussion under the Staff Analysis section of this report). Should the Committee choose to
25 approve the project, staff has attached draft findings and conditions of approval (See
26 Attachments A and B, Draft Site Plan and Architectural Review Findings and Draft Site Plan and
27 Architectural Review Conditions of Approval).
28
29
30 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
31
.32 The applicant, Kenneth Keller of In -N -Out Burger Corporation, is proposing a 3,220 square foot
33 drive through restaurant at 1006 and 1010 Lakeville Highway. This project is within the Central
34 Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP). The restaurant will be approximately 43 feet wide, 80 feet deep
35 and have a maximum height of 27 feet measured from finished grade to the top of the tower.
36 Seating for the restaurant will be 75 seats inside and 24 seats outside for a total of 99. The
37 restaurant will be setback approximately 80 feet from Lakeville Highway (northern property
38 line), 18 feet from the eastern property, 100 feet from southern property line and approximately
39 130 feet from the western property line. (See Attachment C, Location Map and Attachment D
40 Letter of Justification).
41
42 Access to the site via Lakeville Hwy would be from an easement on the parcel to the east
43 (Hammer Marine, APN 005-060-039) and a new right-in/right-out only driveway directly onto
44 Lakeville Hwy. The project would also have access via a private easement along the south side
45 of the parcel extending west to the new Caulfield Lane Extension. The east -west easement
would contain a two-lane roadway to serve the proposed Chevron and In -N -Out projects, the
existing Watersavers Irrigation business. Hammer's Ski and Marine and the parcels between the
proposed east -west easernent and the rail line. Trucks are expected to enter the site via the
easement at the back of the parcel and exit via the right in right out onto Lakeville Hwy. The
project provides 64 onsite parking spaces 9 of which are compact and S for employees. The
building covers approximately 17% of the lot.
A lot line adjustment will be required to finalize the proposed site plan. A blanket application for
lot line adjustment to accommodate the In -NI -Out Restaurant, the associated Chevron Station and
the cast -west easement has been submitted to the City for review.
SETTING
The project site is located on the south side of Lakeville Highway just west of the southbound
Highway 101 ramps (See Attachment C, Location Map). The site is a relatively flat undeveloped
1.3 -acre parcel with no significant vegetation. The site is paved and is developed with two
buildings, one a metal warehouse and the other a single story concrete block building used for
office and light manufacturing. The parcels to the east, west and north of the site across
Lakeville Hwy have retail uses. The parcels to the south of the site have commercial and
industrial uses as well as the NOrthNvest Pacific Railroad Main Line.
BACKGROUND
A staff level preliminary review was completed on July 14, 2003. The applicant modified the
site plan, particularly the access points and the parking layout. The project then went befirre the
Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee for a preliminary review oil October 23, 2003
(See Attachment E, SPARC Minutes Excerpt). The committee raised a number of issues
including traffic impacts to Lakeville Hwy and nearby intersections, internal circulation, building
elevations and landscaping.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Central Petaluma Specific Plan Land Use Consistencv.
The CPSP land use designation for the project parcels is Mixed Use. This designation allows for
a variety of residential, commercial office, retail and industrial uses consistent with the
respective development regulations established within the CPSP area. The intent of this
designation is to promote mixed use throughout the area and, depending on the parcel and its
surroundings, vertical mixed use (i.e., a mix of uses within the same structure) wherever
possible. The proposed project is a single use -retail -and does not meet the precise definition of
mixed use if looked at as a single project. However, the intent of the Mixed Use definition in the
CPSP is to promote a mix of uses in the area, not necessarily on each parcel.
I Central Petaluma Snecific Plan Zonine Consistencv
2
3 The project site is within the Thoroughfare District (D-4) of the CPSP, which allows for diive
4 through retail as a permitted use. The proposed project is consistent with all of the D-4 District
5 requirements.
6
7 Traffic Analvsis
S
9 The applicant submitted a traffic analysis by George W. Nickelson, P.E. analyzing the project's
to effects on three key intersections in the vicinity of the proposed development (See Attachment F,
1 I Traffic Study). The report includes information from the CPSP traffic analysis prepared by Fehr
12 and Peers Associates, 2003 and a traffic report for an In -N -Out -Burger Restaurant in Morgan
13 Hill, CA (2002). The traffic study evaluated project trip generation and distribution, truck
14 access, internal circulation, and the Existing, Existing Plus Project, Existing Plus Project Plus
15 Chevron /Market, and Future level of service at the intersections of Lakeville Street/Caulfield
16 Lane, Lakeville Hwy/US 101 Southbound Ramps, and Lakeville Hwy/US 101 Northbound
17 Ramps
18
19 The table below shows a comparison between the potential number of trips generated by the
20 project site as "strip commercial" (CPSP) and the In -N -Out proposal.
21
Total PM Peak PM Peak Hour PNI Peak Hour
Hour Trips Primary Trips Diverted or Pass -by
Generated Trips
1006 and 1010 Lakeville 69 34 34
Hwy Developed as a "Strip
Commercial" Project
(CPSP)
Proposedln-N-Out 157* 47 110
Burger Restaurant 1
*This number will actually be less because the pm peak hour trips that are being generated by
the current uses (office and light manufacturing) will be eliminated when those buildings are
removed.
22
23 The primary difference between the assumptions of the CPSP development and the In -N -Out
24 proposal would be the higher number of trips diverted from Highway 101. The study further
25 concludes that the expected traffic increases could slightly increase delays, but the changes
26 would not be measurable within typical daily fluctuations in traffic flows.
27 The report indicates that the proposed In -N -Out Restaurant would not significantly affect traffic
28 operations at the Lakeville St. /Caulfield Lane and Lakeville Hwy/Hwy 101 Southbound Ramps
29 and Lakeville Hwy./Hwy.101 Northbound Ramps intersections. All three intersections would
30 continue to operate at existing Levels of Service (LOS "B -C") with moderate PM peak hour
31 delays (See Attachment F, Traffic Study Table 2 page 7).
32
3
I The analysis of future conditions, which includes the planned Caulfield Lane extension and the
2 development of the area south of the rail line, shows that the studs, intersections will potentially
3 degrade to LOS "D". This level of service has been accepted, in the past, as an acceptable peak
4 hour urban congestion level and is consistent with the findings in the Central Petaluma Specific
5 Plan Final EIR.
6
7 The project frontage is Lakeville Hwy, which is a state highway and is therefore the jurisdiction
s of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Caltrans requires an encroachment
9 pen -nit for any modifications or improvements within the state right of way. A condition has
to been applied which requires the applicant to obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans to
11 coordinate the traffic signals at the intersections of Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane and Lakeville
12 Hwy/ Southbound Hwy. 101 Ramps.
13
14 The In -N -Out and the Chevron project proponents originally proposed an 8 -inch by 9 -inch
15 median from the intersection of Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane and Lakeville Hwy/ Southbound
16 Hwy. 101 Ramps to prevent left turns in and out of the site. Staff has recommend that this
17 median not be constructed because it would adversely affect the existing vehicular access to and
is from the businesses on the north side of Lakeville Hwy. between Caulfield Lane and the
19 Southbound Hwy. 101 Ramps as well as Water Savers and Ramp Rats BMX and Skateboard
20 Park on the south side of Lakeville Hwy. The applicants traffic engineer, George W. Nickelson,
21 P.E. has provide a letter stating that the In -N -Out and Chevron proposals alone would not
22 necessitate the construction of this median on Lakeville Street (See Attachment G, letter from
23 George W. Nickelson P.E.). Left turns will be prohibited by a right in right out median at each
24 of the projects Lakeville Driveways. A condition has been proposed which requires the median
25 removed from the plans (See Attachment B, Draft Conditions of Approval, Engineering
26 Division).
27
28 Caulfield Lane Extension
29
30 The Caulfield Lane Extension plan line was approved by City Council on February 23, 2004.
31 The City Engineer has included conditions of approval for this project and the associated
32 Chevron project requiring a proposed design for the extension of Caulfield Lane as part of the
33 improvement plans and building permit plans for the projects. It is staffs' understanding that the
34 property owners of both projects have agreed to construct the extension. The design of the
35 Caulfield Lane Extension is subject to staff review and approval and is required to include
36 sidewalks, bike lanes, and street trees. While the extension of Caulfield Lane, as a public street
37 project, is not subject to SPARC review and approval, staff will ensure that the improvements
38 will be consistent with the applicable standards of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan.
39
40 Parkine
41
42 The CPSP requires that parking areas be designed and constructed to comply with The Parking
43 Development Design Standards (SmartCode page 40) and the guidelines of the Site Plan and
44 Architectural Review Committee. When there is a discrepancy between the CPSP and the
45 SPARC Guidelines staff requires the project to meet the more stringent of the two standards.
46 The SPARC Committee may modify the CPSP standards where it determines that alternative
47 parking designs and standards will more appropriately relate to the operating characteristics of
m
r
I the proposed development or new land use, while being equally effective in providing parking
2 areas that are safe, convenient, use land efficiently and are aesthetically attractive.
3
4 The project includes 64 on site parking spaces, which is 53 spaces over the required I I spaces ( I
5 space/ 300 sq. ft.) in the CPSP. The applicant has requested this additional parking be approved
6 based on a company standard of a minimum of 50 spaces for a "stand alone" site. The CPSP
7 Thoroughfare District (D-4) allows parking in all layers of the property. The proposed location
R of parking in the front and side of the building is consistent with the CPSP requirements. It
9 should also be noted that though it is not prohibited, the two parking spaces adjacent to the
10 easement and the employee parking at the rear of the lot might force drivers to back into the
I I private easement.
12
13 The proposed site plan includes 9 compact parking spaces. The CPSP does not distinguish
14 between a standard and a compact parking space but instead requires each space to be 8.5 feet
15 wide by 18 feet in length (CPSP SmartCode page 40). The parking spaces along the westem
16 property line (shown as 17 feet in length) and the compact spaces throughout the site do not meet
17 this standard. The SPARC Guidelines require that the minimum backup length for 90 degree
18 angle parking be 26 feet. The proposed site plan shows 25 feet, which does not comply with this
19 guideline. The site plan shows the center of the parking lot with 3 landscaped "islands" which
20 are 9 feet wide by 6 feet deep. These islands do not meet the SPARC Guidelines because they
21 are not 6 feet in width exclusive of the concrete curbing and vehicle overhangs. Furthermore,
22 between these islands there is no landscaping or curbing. Staff has provided a condition
23 requiring the site plan is revised to conform to the CPSP and the SPARC Guidelines as to
24 parking space size, backup length and landscape islands.
25
26 Landscaoine
27
28 The landscape plan has been revised to address some of the issues that were raised at the
29 preliminary SPARC hearing. However the following SPARC and CPSP standards and issues
30 raised by the committee at the preliminary meeting have not been addressed:
31
32 Y Standards 5.3 and 5.4, which require landscaping in parking lot areas not used for
33 parking and landscaping around buildings. Specifically the areas on the west, north
34 and south sides of the building, which show no landscaping next to the building.
35 ! The SPARC committee requested that additional landscaping and/or screening be
36 provided to screen the outdoor eating area from Lakeville Hwy.
37 The SPARC committee requested that the lawn area be removed along Lakeville Hwy
38 and that more draught tolerant landscaping be used. Page 17 Section 4.60.040 of the
39 CPSP prohibits turf in street tree planters. Staff has provided a condition that the
40 proposed street tree planters conform to Street Tree Planters Standards of the CPSP
41 page 16.
42 The CPSP requires that landscaping within and/or around the parking area be at a
43 minimum ratio of 10 % of the gross area of the parking lot. Furthermore, a minimum
44 of one shade tree shall be provided for each five parking spaces or the tree canopy
45 coverage shall be 50% of the paved area at maturity, whichever is greater. The
46 proposed landscape plan meets the requirement of the one tree per 5 parking spaces
L,
I but it is not clear if the project mets the 10°o requirement or whether the tree canopy
2 will cover 50% of the paved area at maturity.
3
4 Architecture
5
6 No modifications to the west elevation of the restaurant have been made despite SPARC's
7 request for additional windows or glass blocks to break up the blank wall (See Attachment E.
8 SPARC Preliminary Review Minutes). Also, the applicant did not provided elevations or
9 materials samples of the proposed trash enclosure prior to the writing of this report. Staff has
to requested that these items be presented at the SPARC hearing.
11
12 Site Plan
13
14 SPARC expressed concern regarding the internal circulation, particularly the no right turn
15 requirement at the exit of the drive through lane. The curb cut radii at the end of the drive
16 through lane has not been increased and the prohibition on right turns remains. However, the
17 configuration and the length of the drive through lane has increased by 24 feet or a little over
18 one-car length.
19
20 Liehtin
21
22 A cut sheet and elevations of the proposed outdoor light fixtures proposed has not been provide
23 by the applicant for staff' or SPARC analysis prior to the writing of this report. The site plan
24 does show the location of several 25-foot high parking lot lights. These do not meet the 15
25 maximum height standard of CPSP (SmartCode page 41). Staff has requested that the applicant
26 present the proposed parking lot lights at the SPARC hearing.
27
28 Signs
29
30 The CPSP does not include regulations for signs; therefore, the Zoning Ordinance regulates the
31 size, height and location of signs. The applicant has not submitted a sign program prior to the
32 writing of this report; however, staff has suggested that the applicant provide square footage
33 calculations, locations and colored examples at the SPARC hearing or submit a separate sign
34 permit application..
35
36 Cultural Resources Evaluation
37
38 The applicant has provided a Cultural Resources Evaluation by Archaeological Resource
39 Service, March 1, 2004 (See Attachment H, Cultural Resources Evaluation). The report
40 evaluated the potential historical significance of the corrugated metal warehouse at 1006
41 Lakeville Hwy and the concrete block building at 1010 Lakeville Hwy. Neither one of these
42 buildings were listed as potential significant resources in the CPSP.
43
44 The convgated metal warehouse at 1006 Lakeville Hwy was constructed in 1950 and was
45 originally a foundry, it is currently vacant. In 1981 it was purchased by McPhail's Inc. and used
46 as a storage building for appliances. The building has a large gabled front elevation with no
6
I windows. It is a metal framed building with a concrete slab floor and corrugated metal siding.
2 The front and rear elevations have faded remains of the former company logo, which appears to
3 read "Merner Company". The report concludes that the structure does not appear to be of
4 historic significance at the local, state, or national level. It is of a more modern construction than
5 similar looking structures along First Street in the River Front Warehouse District. The
6 warehouse is not associated with persons or events important in history; the structure is not of a
7 style or method of construction of high architectural value, and the structure does not appear to
8 have the potential to yield information important in history.
9
to The concrete block structures on the property at 1010 Lakeville Hwy were purchased by
I I McPhail's Inc. in 2001. The structures, there are actually two buildings connected with an open
12 sided shed roof, currently house several small businesses and offices. The structures are all built
13 of concrete blocks and have flat roofs. These buildings also do not appear to have historical
14 significance either at a local, state or national level.
15
16 The Cultural Resources Evaluation by Archaeological Resource Service was reviewed and
17 approved by Heritage Homes of Petaluma.
18
19 Pedestrian Bicvcle Advisory Committee (PBAC) Review
20
21 The project was reviewed by the PBAC. All of the committee requirements have been included
22 as conditions of approval, except for the condition, which requires "unimpeded access around the
23 property, which allows pedestrian and bike access to the future Rail Trail". Staff has not
24 conditioned this project to provide a public path or access easement from Lakeville Hwy to the
25 southern property line. The project, as conditioned, will include the full width of the extension
26 of Caulfield Lane, which includes bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides; therefore, access will
27 be provided to the future rail trail.
28
29 During the SPARC preliminary review hearing the question was asked, if showers were required
30 for this project. The Bike Plan does not require a shower to be provided in buildings that are less
31 than 10,000 square feet. The proposed project is 3,220 square feet and therefore, no shower is
32 required (See Attachment I, PBAC Comments).
33
34
35 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
36
37 The project is exempt from further environmental review because: 1) The project is consistent
38 with the impacts evaluated in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report
39 certified by the City Council on June 3, 2003 and 2) the proposed project is exempt from the
40 provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303, Class 3(c),
41 "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", of the CEQA Guidelines which allows
42 the construction of new buildings of up to 10,000 square feet.
43
44
45
46
7
I PUBLIC NOTICE -
3 The project was noticed in the Argus Courier on April 7, 2004 and notices were mailed to
4 property owners and occupants within five hundred feet of the subject property. At the writing
5 of this staff report, one e-mail was received from the Jim Hammer, owner of Hammer's Ski and
6 Marine stating his support for the project.(See Attachment J, E -Mail from Jim Hammer).
7
8
9 DECISION TIMELINE
10
11
The project was submitted on December 1, 2003 and was deemed complete on April 7, 2004.
12
Pursuant to the terms of the Permit Streamlining Act, a decision must be made within 60 days of
13
the project being
deemed complete. Thus, SPARC must render a final decision on the project by
14
June 7, 2004.
The applicant may request a one-time extension if additional time is needed to
15
revise the project.
16
17
Attachments:
18
19
A.
Site Plan and Architectural Review Draft Findings, April 22, 2004
20
B.
Site Plan and Architectural Review Draft Conditions of Approval, April 22, 2004
21
C.
Location Map
22
D.
Project Justification
23
E.
Minutes from SPARC Preliminary Review October 23, 2003
24
F.
Traffic Study by George W. Nickelson, P.E. January 21, 2004
25
G.
Letter from George W. Nickelson P.E., April 7, 2004
26
H.
Cultural Resources Evaluation by Archaeological Resource Service, March 1,
27
2004
28
1.
Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee Comments
29
J.
E -Mail from Jim Hammer, Owner of Hammer Ski and Marine, April 7, 2004
30
K.
Architectural, Site, Landscaping and Engineering Plans date stamped March 26,
31
2004 (Full size and reduce I I x 17 for SPARC members only)
32
8
ATTACHMENT 5
PORTIONS OF ARTICLE 21
PROVISIONS APPLYING TO CERTAIN ACCESSORY USES AND TO ALL
CONDITIONAL USES
21-204 Signs and sien structures. Purposes: To protect the public health, safety, and
general welfare of the City by ensuring that the number, type, size, and design of
all signs in Petaluma will not detract from the attractiveness and orderliness of the
City's appearance.
21-204.1 To protect the general welfare of the merchants and property owners in Petaluma
by avoiding wasteful and costly competition among sign users which can result
from the uncontrolled use of signs.
21-204.2 Definitions:
A. "Area of signing": The total area of all non-exempi permanent signs
related to a single occupant.
B. "Building frontage": The primary wall or walls of a building facing a
public street or streets (not including freeways).
C. "Chief Building Inspector": The Chief Building Inspector of the City of
Petaluma or his designated representative.
D. "City": The City of Petaluma.
E. "City Council": The Petaluma City Council.
F. "Erect": To build, construct, attach, hang, place, suspend or affix, and
shall also include the painting of wall signs.
G. "Free-standing sign": Any sign standing on the ground. Such signs are
usually, but not necessarily, supported from the ground by one or more
poles or posts or similar uprights.
H. "Illuminated Signs": Any sign which has characters, letters, figures,
designs, or outline illuminated by electric lights or luminous tubes.
1. "Direct illumination": Light source is an external part of the sign.
J. "Indirect illumination": Light source is an internal part of the sign.
K. "Marquee": Any permanent roofed structure attached to and supported by
a building.
L. "Occupant": One who occupies a group of buildings, one building, or
each substantially separate physical division of a building.
M. "One foot lambert": Equal in brightness to one lumen per square foot
reflected from a surface. One lumen per square foot is equal to a square
foot illuminated evenly by one foot candle at any point.
N. "Outdoor advertising structure": Any device which is used or designed to
direct attention to a business, profession, commodity, service, or
entertainment which is conducted, sold, or offered elsewhere than upon the
lot where such sign is located.
O. "Planning Commission": The City of Petaluma Planning Commission.
"Planning Director": The Planning Director of the City of Petaluma or a
designated representative.
Q. "Projecting Sign":. Any sign, other than a wall sign, which is suspended
from or supported by a building or wall and which projects outward
therefrom. Any sign suspended under a marquee, porch, walkway
covering or similar covering structure and in a place approximately
perpendicular to the wall of the adjoining building shall_ be deemed to be a
projecting sign.
R. "Roof sign": Any sign erected upon or over the roof or parapet of any
building or eave of any building, including the roof of any porch, walkway
cowering, or similar covering structure, and supported by or connected to
the building or roof.
"Shopping center": Any combination of five (5) or more separately
owned and operated retail businesses on a single or commonly owned or
leased parcel of land, or a commercial use of commercial complex
occupying a site of at least two (2) acres. An existing building situated on
a single parcel of land which is converted into separate retail businesses is
not for the purpose of this section defined as a shopping center.
T. "Sign": Any writing, pictorial representation, symbol, banner, or any
other figure of similar character of whatever material which is used to
identify, announce, direct attention to, advertise or communicate.
U. "Sign area": The area in square feet of the smallest rectangle enclosing the
total exterior surface of a sign, or of one face of a double face sign.
V. "Street": A public right-of-way thirty (30) feet or more in width which
provides a public means of access to abutting property. The tern "street"
shall include avenue, drive, circle, road, parkway, boulevard, highway,
freeway, or any other similar term, but not alley. The tern shall include
the total width of the dedicated right-of-way.
W. "Wall sign": Any sign posted or painted on, suspended from or otherwise
affixed to the wall of any building or structure in an essentially flat
position, or with the exposed face of the sign in a place approximately
parallel to the plane of such wall. Any sign suspended from and placed
approximately parallel to the front of a canopy, porch, or similar covering
structure shall be deemed to be a wall sign.
X. "Window sign": Any sign placed on, or inside an exterior window. This
shall include but not be limited to: decals, stickers, readerboards, neon
tubing signs, signs painted directly o» the glass surface, and signs made of
wood, plastic, metal, composite materials, paper, or cardboard.
Y. "Zoning Ordinance": The City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance.
21-204.3 General Provisions - Conformity kvith Regulations. No sign, outdoor advertising
structure or display shall be pennitted except in conformity with the following
regulations:
A. On-site sign locations: All signs and displays shall be located on the same
site as the use they identify or advertise, except subdivisions.
Q. Roof signs: No sign or sign structure shall be painted or located upon or
above the roof of any building, unless integrated as part of the building
architecture.
C. Marquee signs: No sign shall be placed upon the roof or on the face of
any marquee unless integrated as part of the building architecture.
D. Vertical clearance: There shall not be less than ten (10) feet of clearance
between the bottom of an overhanging sign and ground level, except that
marquee signs not exceeding six (6) square feet in arca may be erected
with a minimum vertical clearance of eight and one-half (8-1l2) feet.
E. Sign obstruction: No sign shall be erected in such a manner than any
portion of the sign or its support is attached to or will interfere with the
free use of any fire escape, exit or standpipe, or obstruct any required
stairway, door, ventilator, or window.
F. Wall and projecting signs: A wall or projecting sign attached to a building
shall not extend above the top of the wall upon or in front of which it is
situated, or in the case of buildings having sloping roofs, above the eave of
the roof.
G. Hazardous signs: No sign or outdoor advertising structure shall be erected
in such a manner that it will, or reasonably may be expected to interfere
with, obstruct, confuse, or mislead traffic or create a safety hazard.
H. Signs near street intersections: No sign shall be erected at the intersection
of any street improved for vehicular traffic, within a triangular area formed
by the curb lines and their projection, and a line connecting them at points
thirty-five (35) feet from the intersection of the projected curb lines, unless
in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance, has a clearance of at
least ten (10) feet above curb grade.
I. Moving and novelty signs; pennants: Moving signs, sign structures, and
flashing lights are prohibited, except for official flags and symbols, clocks,
thermometers, and traditional type barber poles that rotate. Pennants shall
be included in the total sign area permitted for a particular use or site.
J. Lighting: An illuminated sign within five hundred (500) feet of an R
District measured along the radius of one hundred eighty (180) degree arc
in front of a face of the sign, shall not be directly lighted, but may be
indirectly lighted, provided that the surface brightness shall not be greater
than thirty (30) foot lamberts.
K. Lighting of free-standing signs: All free-standing signs shall be
illuminated indirectly with while light and no light filament or tubing shall
be visible from the front of the sign or from beyond the property line.
L. Signs in Planned Unit Developments: Signs in P.U.D. (Planned Unit
Development) Districts shall comply with the regulations prescribed in
this section for the districts with which they are combined.
M. Sign visibility: Not more than three (3) permanent signs for any one (1)
occupant shall be visible from any one (1) ground vantage point.
N. All freestanding signs for properties with an East Washington Street
frontage shall be a monument, low -profile style not exceeding five (5) feet
in height measured from the grade of nearest public sidewalk.
21-204.4 Signs in A (Agricultural), R (Residential), and C -O (Administrative and
Professional Office ) Districts. Conformity with Regulations: No sign, outdoor
advertising structure, or display with any character shall be permitted in an A, R,
or C -O District except the following:
A. Permanent tract signs. One (1) permanent tract identification sign may be
erected at the main entrance of a tract, provided that it does not exceed five
(5) feet in height and twenty-five (25) square feet in area. Such sign may
be indirectly illuminated in white light, provided the intensity does not
exceed ten (10) foot lamberts.
B. Real estate signs. One (1) non -illuminated real estate sign advertising the
sale, rental, or lease of the premises on which it is maintained. For each
ten (10) feet of lot(s) width, one (1) square foot of sign area is pennitted,
but in no case shall such area exceed thirty (30) square feet. All such signs
shall be set back from every street lot line at least a distance in feet equal
to one-half (1/2) the number of square feet in area of the sign, but each
setback shall not be less than any required front yard.
C. Free-standing signs. One free-standing identification sign not directly
lighted, not exceeding twenty (20) square feet in area or a height of five
(5) feet on the site of a public building or grounds, a private institution, a
church, a club or lodge, or a professional office building, clinic or
laboratory.
D. Wall sign: One (1) wall identification sign not directly lighted, not
exceeding twelve (12) square feet in area on the site of a church, school,
community center or other public or institutional building.
E. Announcement signs: One (1) non -illuminated announcement sign or
bulletin board not over twelve (12) square feet in area on the site of a
church, school, community center or other public or institutional building
which sign, if not attached flat against a building, shall be at least twelve
(12) feet from all street curb or pavement lines.
E.1 Announcement Signs for Public and Private Academic Schools: One (1)
non -illuminated announcement sign or bulletin board not over thirty-two
(32) feet in area on the site of a public or private academic school. Which
sign, if not attached flat against a building, shall be at least twelve (12)
feet from all street curb or pavement lines. Announcement signs may not
project over two (2) feet from any wall surface in compliance with Section
21-204.5G. Messages on these signs shall be related to school activities.
The school shall be responsible for maintaining the sign in an attractive
and well kept condition. Unauthorized messages and/or graffiti shall be
removed from the sign in a timely manner.
E.2
Announcement Signs for Churches, Community Centers or Other Public
or Institutional Buildings Other Than Public and Private Academic
Schools: One (1) non -illuminated announcement sign or bulletin board
not over twelve (12) square feet in area on the site of a church, community
center or other public or institution building other than a public or private
academic school. Which sign, if not attached flat against a building, shall
be at least twelve (12) feet from all street curb or pavement lines.
Announcement signs may not project over two (2) feet from any mall
surface in compliance with Section 21-204.5G.
F.
Temporary signs: Temporary construction and subdivision signs, in
accordance with the provisions of' Section 21-204.6.
G.
Lighting of signs: No sign in an A, R, or C -O District shall be constructed
in such a way that any light fiiament or tubing is visible from the front of
the sign or from beyond the property line.
H.
Bed and Breakfast Inns: One (1) identification sign, on the site of a bed
and breakfast inn, not internally lighted, not exceeding six (6) square feet
in area, of distinctive design and in keeping with the character of the
structure and neighborhood.
21-204.5 Signs
in C (Commercial) and M (Industrial) Districts - Confornlity with
Regulations. No sign, outdoor advertising structure, or display of any character
shall be permitted in a C or M District except the folloNving:
A.
Exempted signs: Signs exempted from sign permits.
B.
C -O District: Signs in accordance with Section 21-204.4.
C.
Sale, lease and rental signs: One (1) sign pertaining to the sale, lease,
rental, or display of a structure or land, not exceeding six (6) square feet in
a C-NDistrict or twenty (20) square feet in a C -C, C -H, N1 -L, or M -G
District.
D. Shopping center free-standing signs: One (1) free-standing sign not
exceeding thirty (30) feet in height and two hundred (200) square feet in
area on the site of a shopping center, with a maximum height of ten (10)
feet from the bottom to top of the sign face, provided that all buildings are
set back not less than thirty (30) feet from the curb or street pavement edge
on which the shopping center fronts. Shopping centers fronting on two (2)
or more public streets shall be allowed one (1) additional free-standing
sign for each additional frontage. Such signs shall not exceed twenty-five
(25) square feet in area nor a height of fifteen (15) feet.
E. Other free-standing signs: One (1) free-standing sign not exceeding the
height of the main building, or twenty (20) feet, whichever is lower,
provided that all buildings are set back not less than twenty-five (25) feet
from the curb or street pavement edge on which the use fronts; or one (I)
free-standing sign not exceeding five (5) feet in height and twenty (20)
square feet in area provided that all buildings are set back not less than
fifteen (15) feet from the curb or street pavement edge on which the use
fronts and the sign blends architecturally with the main building on the lot.
F. Wall signs: No more than two (2) wall signs for each primary building
face (no building shall be deemed to have more than four [4] primary
building faces), not exceeding a thickness of ten (10) inches, including any
light box or other structural part, in all C or M Districts.
G. Projecting signs: One (1) projecting sign for each building frontage not
exceeding ten (10) square feet in area and not projecting over two (2) feet
from any wall surface. Exception: any sign suspended under a marquee,
porch, walkway or similar covering structure may project more than two
(2) feet from any wall surface but shall not project beyond the walkway
covering structure.
H. Temporary signs: One (1) temporary construction sign not exceeding
forty (40) square feet in area nor eight (8) feet in height on the site of the
structure while under construction and shall contain only names of
persons, firms and information pertaining to the structure.
21-204.6 Permitted Area of Signing.
A. For all C (Commercial) and M (Industrial) zoning districts exclusive of
shopping centers, the maximum permitted area of signing for any occupant
shall be the following:
One (I) square foot of sign area for every ground level linear foot
of building frontage; or in the case of buildings with multiple
building frontages, one (I) square foot of sign area for every
ground level linear foot of the longest building frontage plus one-
half (1/2) square foot of signing for every linear foot of additional
frontage, where no building exists the maximum allowable sign
area shall be derived from the allowable building envelope (area
exclusive of setback), not to exceed the maximum stated in
subsection 3 hereof.
2. Buildings fronting on more than one (1) public right-of-way may
not combine permissible sign area for one frontage with another
frontage.
No sign or combination of signs on a parcel located in said districts
shall exceed two hundred (200) square feet nor shall be restricted
to less than twenty (20) square feet of permanent signing.
4. One (1) directory sign not exceeding twelve (12) square feet in area
to identify occupants of the upper floors in a multi -story building,
in addition to the maximum stated in subsection 3 hereof.
B. The sign area for all uses located in a shopping center shall be allotted in
accordance with the following procedures:
Multiply the number of businesses within the center by one
hundred (100) square feet to determine the total aggregate sign
area.
2. Subtract the area of the free-standing shopping center signs, if any.
The maximum allowable area of the main free-standing sign shall
not exceed two hundred (200) square feet, and other permitted free-
standing signs shall not exceed twenty-five (25) square feet.
Multiply the number of businesses within the center by twenty (20)
square feet (a sign area constant available to each business in a
shopping center to assure that businesses with very small floor
areas will have adequate sign area for identification) and subtract
the result from the balance of the aggregate sign area.
4. Determine the total floor area for all businesses in the center, then
determine what percentage each store represents of the total floor
area.
Use the floor area percentage ratio to determine the percentage of
the balance of the sign area to be allotted to each store, and add the
"constant" twenty (20) square foot area.
I
ATTACHMENT 6
DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF PETALUMA
DENYING
THE APPEAL BY MILLER, STARR & REGALIA,
OF THE DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING THE VARIANCE FOR ADDITIONAL SIGN AREA FOR THE IN -N -OUT
BURGER RESTAURANT AT 1010 LAKEVILLE HWY.
FILE # 05 -APL -0658 -CR,
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of Petaluma held a public
hearing to consider a variance for additional sign area for the In -N -Out Burger restaurant at 1010
Lakeville Highway, APN 005-060-015, 038,
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2005, after considering the public testimony and the application
materials, the Planning Commission unanimously denied the request for a variance base on there
inabilty of make any of the required findings; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2005, the City Clerk received a letter of appeal from Miller, Starr &
Regalia; and
WHEREAS, the Petaluma City Council held a noticed public hearing on January 23, 2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby denies the requested
appeal of the Planning Commission's decision based upon the inability to make any of the
following findings:
1. That there are peculiar and unusual conditions inherent in the property sufficient to cause a
hardship and such conditions are not common to all or most of the properties in the
immediate area.
2. That the proposed parcel creates a hardship that is unique and can be remedied or mediated
by the approval of a variance.
3. That property rights are being denied or restricted by the location, configuration or any other
aspect of the project property.
4. That the authorizing of such variance will be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
and will materially impair the purposes of this Ordinance or the public interest.
5:\CC-City Council\Reporls\Revised In -N -Out Sign Variance Appeal 1010 Lakeville CC.doc
6