Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/03/1975j A G E'' N D' A' ' PETALUMA GITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 3, 1975 REGULAA'MEETING 7;30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL -CHAMBERS, CITY HALL .. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PLEDGE ALI!EGIANCE TO. THE. FLAG Comm Balshaw Bond HorciAza Matter ,ROLL: CALL.!: Popp Water's Hillig.o,s.s STAFF: Frank ;B, Gray.,: 'Director of Community Development Dennis Boehlje, S-ehior Planner APP.ROVAL OF MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE EIQ EVALUATION 'ironmental revew•Qf. construction of a spoils - Env i SPOILS DREDGING SITE: site *:for the dr.edg:ing of the Petaluma - River. The !' F spoils site will be located southeast of and >> adjacent to the confluence of ;Adobe Creek and the Petaluma River. EIQ EVALUATION, & SITE Environmental .Impact Questionnaire review and DE'5IGN REVIEW'- site 'design review cbnsderation for proposed IfNN alterat -ions and additions to the existing Petaluma ,PETALUMA RESTAURANT %MOTEL Inn Restaurant /Motel located at 2,00 South. McDowell. _ ADDITION: Blvd. ALLEY NAMING: 14' earing to consider the; naming of the downtown alley;•` to their individual, historically distinctive names. AD 'OURivMENT PETALUMA .CITY P] GULAR MEETING` COUNCIL CAL PRESENT.: Corm *Ci ABSENT,: Co1 STAFF ^^ Fri Dei t AP,P.ROVAL. OF MI] JUNE .3 , 19,75 7:30. P.M. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA The minutes ,of'May 20, 1975, were approved submitted,:. } CORRESP Q 1VALUATION;/SITE S IGN REVIEW /j (' VARIANCE - PETALUMA INN: RESTAURANTI /MOTE ADDITION: f 1 i s j • 'r M kNNING _COMMISSION FIBERS;, CITY HALL Bond, Hilligoss., Horciza, Matte` *, Popp ,• Waters n. Mattei left -, at 7:50. p,m. . Balshaw k B. .Gray, Director :f Community ,Development is .Boehlj;e,.Senior Planner Mr.'Gray reminded the- members of :,the Commission -of the meeting be- tween.the various .City- elected•of'ficials and the Board -of Super- visors regarding the County General Plan, to be held on June 7, 19,75, at the. Santa Rosa Community Center beginning at 10:00 a.m. He encouraged.,all members who could.possib:ly attend to-do so, to obtain an understanding -of t,he-General-'Plan and - to provide input consistent with .the City's desires. Councilman Mattei also urged as many members as possible.to attend. Mr. Gray'briefly explained 'the proposal for alterations.and addi- tions'to the existing Petaluma Inn.Restauran.t and for the proposed 26 motel unit-,addition. - He advised that no, negative comments have been received from reviewing !a and the. staff therefore recommended that a Negative Declaration be� found. Comma ;Bond made .a motion to direct ,the, Director of Community De- velopment�to prepare and post a Negative Declaration for the proj'ec :t,. The motion was seconded'by Comm. Horciza. Comm. Mattei excused himself from the meeting at this time, stating that he could not vote since he Eras an involved property owner. AYES 5 "NOES 0 ABSENT 2 Comm. Waters advised that the Architectural and Site Design Review Committee had felt that the full. Commission should consider the site design and variance request; since that Committee had dis- agreed with.the staff's recommendation regarding project. The Commission reviewed roof;sign plans,furnished by the appli- cant's architect, which ind'ica,ted as an alternate relocating the existing nonconforming .roof sign to the gabled area of the restau- rant bulding•f acng.East Washington Street,: Comm.' Waters ques- tioned why the sign had,been placed-or' the roof in the first place, to which Mr. Gray.repli.ed there was evidence in the files that the subject sign had be'en.'appr.axed in past proceedings.. He further Petaluma City Planning Commission 'Minutes, June 3,'.1975 advised that a variance, for the large free = standing sign had been ~ granted for height and. area ;orily, but' .the flashing portion, .should be eliminated to be in conf'ormanc`e with the current 'Zoning Ordi- nance. The request -for a variance: to allow a ­reductior; of nine parking spaces was briefly reviewed_. It'was noted that in the staff's opinion the conditions necessary `to grant a variance. - do not •exist. The representatives f - ov" he. Architectural and Site Design Review Committee, Comm Water=s and Hil:ligoss, stated., they .did •not: oppose' the granting of the variance, since the parking Iot is never full at the ;pr.e'sent time and .it.;was not felt that the proposed' addition would .pose 'a problem. It. `was .also felt that the parking area consisted of a ,double use,. - since the 'motel users, would also be utilizing the restaurant... Mr. Dick Lieb, arcltect ` €;or the proj''ect.,. stated he felt that •the 'variance was justified 'because the restaurant and motel were under the same ownership. Therefore, a dual situation exists which is unlike that of a 'shopping - center.. A brief "discuss on followed regarding how the ,amount of seats iii the restaurant and the number of the proposed "motel, °had been arrived at.. `Mr. Lieb•advised that the landscaping had- bearing on the amount of parking spaces, but he felt the- landscaping proposed was: aesthet- ically necessary and should. not -be•eliminated.for additional parking spaces, Mr_ `Herold.Mahoney spoke in favor of granting the variance: He stated that he felt the jioint •use•of the facilities was pertinent' to the subject an that a:peak period would rarely 'be found since, the peak hours are different. in the motel and in the• restaurant.. The four conditions. necessary to grant a variance were.briefly reviewed and discussed: Mr. 'Lieb felt the variance was justified because of the joint .use involved and stated that *he did not feel approval of the variance•would special privilege that had not been granted elsewhere in town. Comm ' Bond made a motion that. based on these findings, and also • that. -the variance would not b&-of substantial detriment to the adjacent property and would not-materially the purposes of the•,Zoning 'Ord nance or the, public interest, the requested. variance should:be approved.' The motion- was•seconded by Comm Popp, AYES 5 NOES ' ABSENT 2 The eight conditions of approval recommended'by the Architectural. and Site Design Review .Committee were •read,. The app= licant was asked if was to e'l'imina'te - the flashing portion of-the free - standing sign:" Mr. Lieb replied that, the ,applicants wished'.to retain the flashing „element since it was a. national trademark and a variance had:beein given for 'the sign. Mr: Gray advised that a variance been' granted in'1965,�but•no mention o'f the flashing -2 Petaluma City lanni'ng Commission Minutes'',. June 3. 1975 portion had been made. He further advised that the free - standing sign violated the City's current :Zoning Ordinance in height and area,. and in.i'ts orientation to.`the f- reeway -. Mr. Gray_ clarified that the flashing; por.tionF of - ,the ;sign was. no;t desired because it would.tend to make.the motorists look away from the freeway and to the -sign. `He then read Section 2- 1- 204.14 of the Zoning. Ordinance, which prohibits the flashing p,,btt.ibn of this rsign. Mr. Mahoney advised the-Commission that .variance.had been granted with•the specific Western, Crown. design.. He, added that it was a national Symbol and considered' very imp.ortant to the owners. Mr. Gray replied that many, of-the Western Motels throughout the U.S. no longer have flashing crowns:. He: further advised that the variance granted did not speak to the flashing portion of the sign,, and the staff report; relating to -`that variance indicated that plans for the sign had not been available at the time the report was written, nor .were ; plans, attached to. the Available Mr. Mahoney stated that he felt the flashing sign,was needed because.of the pedestrian overcros.sing hindering the - view-,of this sign., A,bref discussion followed. Comm. Hor.ciza made motion to approve the site design with the eight- conditions:of, approval as. .outlined by the Architectural and Site Design Review Committee. The position of the roof -top sign was questioned,, and Mr. Gray.clarified that it would be relocated to the gabled area of the restaurant' building facing East�Washing ton Street, in accordance uiith•the'recominended conditions of.ap:pro val. Mr. Lieb advised that the, applicant - wished to keep the roof -top !sign and integrate it with 'the screening for the air-conditioning units. The applicants. -felt they wouldtend to lose .their identity since the, sign had been on - the buil for a good . many years - Mr. Gray -read the -portion of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to signs and the.desire to. maintain a low profile.,.and strongly recommended that the.­sign be, removed from the roof. He clarified that an additional sign. , could be added to the -of the building and - that he -felt there' was no pressing; need -for the-roof-top sign. Comm. _Bond stated he felt the -roof .sign. was clearly in violation, but suggested 'that the flashing portion of-the .free- standing sign ,be - permitted. He. ,also * stated . the ,:ro:of sign would-be of no-value from the freeway once the additional motel units had been con- structed. .Mr. - IUictor :DeCarli,; one of the , off -icers of ;.Pe'taluma Properties, advised the roof -top sign.had been installed when the building was constructed,, but lie did- .not.know.if %t had been indicated on the plans. He also stated he-did-not feel the "roof would-look right without the sign,, because�of the air •.conditioning units, and ,spoke in favor of allowing " the sign, to remain. He also he did not-- want alternate sign.'facng McDowell Boulevard: Comm. Waters; seconded the motion made by Comm. Horciza to approve the site design review with the eight cond t of approval as .recommended -'by the Architectural and Site 'Design Review Committee. -3- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minute's, June 3, 1975 4 AYES 1. NOES 4 ABSENT 2' Comm: Bond made a- motion to approve the site design review-with 'the* conditions of approval.s'tated by'the - Architectural and Site Design Review with the exception of , Item #7 which would remove . . "the flashing por -tion. Hof the large sign;. Mr. DeCarli questioned, Qondition. #2 pertaining to the fire hydrant. Mr.! Lieb further- explained that .the Fire 'Marshal had .advised it would not have to be, provided until the motel additions were put in. It was; determined to add•to.Cond t on #2�that the on -site f- ire, hydrant, would b.e.requir.ed before the = issuance of a building permit for the 26 motel: unit:,ad'dition. The motion. was seconded 'by .Comma Popp,:. AYES 4' NOES 1 AB'S'ENT 2 Chairman Hilligoss clarified her `Pao" 'vote: by' stating she was not in ;favor of, retaining the flashing portion 'of the sign. The applicant was advised he could appeal the conditions of ap- proval to the,Cit Council,. . EIQ EVALUATION :Mr. Gray informed the.'Commiss on that, environmental review, under SPOILS DREDGING SITE CEQA was:necessary since a permit to reinforce the dikes was need'ed,— from BCDC. . He' advised the Commission that an E -.I.Q. had been prepared and mitigating measured indie'ated:to_negate any adverse environmental impact on the area involved :or`the Ci of Petaluma The, staff had th'eref'ore recommend'e'd. that -a, �Nega'tive :Declaration be- found to be in order. -A- shot- t-'dis.cuss on followed:. Comm. Waters then made-a motion to direct the Director bf! Community Development. to prepare - and post a Negative De'clar.at oii'f.or the project. Comm. Horciz'a seconded the motion: AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 ALLEY NAMING: Mr. Gray explained to the Commission ,that° the Heritage Homes of Petaluma, Inc. have requested that the City Council off'icially the downtown alleys to their individual;-historically distinctive names. The staff report was briefly reviewed and;the public . hearing; opened. Mr. John.Eliassen Co'chairman.of the.Historic< and Cultural Preser vation Committee,, ,addressed the Commission in favor of naming the alleys. A brief.discussion.followed regarding the origins behind the various alley names,.'.�tomm.- Waters stated. . he felt the remainder of : alley a should be named. The public hearing was closed. -.4- Petaluma. City P Commission Minutes, June 3, ,1975 t, Comm. Bond made.a motion ta'recommend' the City Council that the alleys be named as indicated:. The motion was seconded by Comm. Pop - AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 OTHER BUSINESS: 1) LAFCQ Spheres of Influence Program - Mr. Gray ix `Lrrie.ii t: e. ;' Commission that a work program implementing the guidelines for the spheres of influence 1a'd been rescinded. He stated that he felt the ius ifications listed were proper, but that he was concerned that some of the justifications rely on projections done by the County- in their General Ryan and if we are asked to est'ab,lish the sphere's of influence roe's before the General Plan has been adopted, he did not feel the City could meet these justifications- However, he stated that LAFCO had as- sured him that local mforination could supersede the County General Plan information if it `has not-'been adopted. 2) Railroad Crossings on "'D" Street. - Comm. Waters referred to the railroad.'ls refusal to do anything regarding the railroad cross- ing on "D" Street, and asked if the City could not deny the railroad the right to cross the street. Mr. Gray replied that the, City Attorney was checking into the matter. _ ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,, the meeting ended-at 9:30 p.m. n� airman -5-