Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/05/1975AGE.ND ;A• PETALUMA.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS`., CITY HALL PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ,AUGUST 5, 1975 7:30 P.M. 'PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA ROLL CALL::' Comm. Balsh'aw Bond Horciza Hlligoas Popp Waters STAFF: Dennis Boehlj.e,,'Planning Director i APPROVAL O MINUTES I , r g.., o request of .:: . DAVID C NOLES C -H. Public Hearin • to consider the -re u Dr David C. C H District Z8 =75 Noles for a rezonin from R C District to for .a portion of a parcel shown as ;Parcel No. -1 on a _. "parcel map being processed; to' cr'eate an' 'evei ' zoning boundary --for property lo'cat'ed -. at .709/'711. Petaluma .Blvd North. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1) Site design review''fo.r ;four two - story single- family houses in.Greenbria,r Subdiviskon.Phase III in accordance with the original conditions of. approval of the Planning Commission. (Recommendation of the Planning Director for,•approval as submitted,) 2) 'Site design review f,or''the proposed E1 Toro Mexican Restaurant submitted: by George Martinez to be located at.226 Petaluma Blvd`. North. (Recommenda = -: tion of the Planning•Dir.ector -for approval subject to conditions of approval as, noted_ in the staff . report.) y . BANK OF MAR VARIANCE Consideration 'of` variance application ,submitted by REQUEST V3_75: George-V. Banning representing of Marin for a variance to allow a second free- standing sign in addi- tion to the existing free - standing. directional sign { near the southeast rear corner of ,the.bank building i located at 1060 Petaluma Blvd. North. DICKSON'HILL - PUD Public Hearing ta•consid'er the request of Mr. .& Mrs. Ron REZONING Z7 -.75: Nunn for a rezoning from ;Palann ed Unit ° g -D,istrict to create seven residential lots to Planned Unit District to, create four residential.'lot5., located off of West Street. g.., o request of .:: . DAVID C NOLES C -H. Public Hearin • to consider the -re u Dr David C. C H District Z8 =75 Noles for a rezonin from R C District to for .a portion of a parcel shown as ;Parcel No. -1 on a _. "parcel map being processed; to' cr'eate an' 'evei ' zoning boundary --for property lo'cat'ed -. at .709/'711. Petaluma .Blvd North. INUTES S TALUMA CITY PLANNING 'CO MISS ION AUGUST 5, 1975 REGULAR MEETING 7 : 30 P.M.. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS,, CITY'HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA :PRESENT: Comm. Bond, Horciza, Hilligoss,.:PopD, Waters ABSENT: None STAFF: Dennis Boehlje,:-Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The°mnutes of July 15;-1975, were: approved as mailed. CORRESPONDENCE: CORRESPONDENCE. l }.A `letter - from, -the city Manager the Planning Police Station:. temporary building - Commission, with:.regard to. -•the was read,: .A brie €•discussion - followed;and the_Commission deter- to,'see any - modiffeations and have them miAed -- that would wish : - -they reviewed by- the Comm ion. j 2) Mr -. Boehlj`e _advised -that t1r. .Doti. Petro had submitted a' revision.. in - the site design the Michael Hudson cold storage warehouse, located - at 12.97 Dynamic Way;, to _change the facia from white - -to rown. Samples-we - re - shown; -to 'the Commission and they were,.informed that no. action: would,` be- necessary unless, they objected to:the- change.:- =No: objection was raised. 3). Mr. Boehljie read..a request. froth -Ken, Johnson for a private street to serve four lots on,,Madison Street_for, the. Wojciechowski property :. -'He further advised that" .Planned . Unit,. District zoning had been previously approved the . applicant . had applied for a C which required, approval of the by the Planning, Commission and City - Council '.It .was noted that the City Engineer. and Fre.. Chief` had ::no adverse . = comments - and that a road maintenance a reement: had ad been - worked -out to :.the satisfaction of the -City'At 'Therefore ,::the .1 staf f_recomm ended that 'the private street request. b'e- for-warded.to,:.the_ -City Council with, a. recommendation: f' or- approval.; : Comm. 'Bond made_amotion -to •forward recommendation to the ' City Council for :approval. o£..the private street. for- the Wojc- echowsk proRerty. - Comm.: ^Waters;;- seconded the motion. AYES 5 `NOES 0 - ABSENT 0 CALENDAR:,' CONSENT C Mr. ; Boehlj a_dvsed-- that�:the::,a licant:_had�.:requested ,that the pP site >_desi ga review :,for i-.the7 proposed.- E1•. To-re.Mexcan Restaurant- be.: °retao� red from.•the.- Consent Caleadar_to- _be..eonsidered as a `• separate item. Planning. Comms August 5,, 1975 Comm. Po pp ma w- do a motion- concurconcur -with :the .Planning Director's �r,.ecommendation the,s-ite-design review for 'four two -story .siiigle-faCmily. houses_ in:I'Gr:eenbriar Subdivision Phase III Comm.:-Horciza: seconded the motion. .AYES': 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 0, ! EL TORO mExim I Mr. �Bo,ehlje read the,::condit1ons that,..tb:e Planning D_ irector had RESTAURANT:- -s de 6 al of.the..Mexican: nt to be ITE, recommended f o r approv restaura DESIGN REVIEW: located at. 226 Petaluma - Bou1evard - -Vorth,, and stated that the applicant was in disagreement.wit h,.on6,-of those conditions. Mr. Dick representing t I he:ap , "licantj ra--ised disagreement with Condition fflj! x4h,ic,h.. ruf-sawn redwood panelling over- the entrance `:shall - extond across the; entire front of 'th_b build_i,ng­ove r,.,the frontage . as well as-the restaurant,. He adv1,§edAt a question of economics,, since :Mr 6. Mat tinez, is ;leas irig ...1th,e - property and not, own it;. Mr; Lieb also cited, the - ,need:.for separate identi- fication :,of the shops: and ---,felt �thdt,-, the s. roof line 'and iron work Xre I the planting, would- be Mr. Boeh1je, s t'alted, that the . continuation of the panelling was Ptiggested toolend-continuity;but.'t . herg., ordinance that would 'require it. He 'added -that .hei- had -..nb,,.obj ectibns to the . .proposed - treatment., Comm. .. B6nd rof errjod-;: to the - north :'side-.. of the..buildi,ng,, which ba's a - partidl brick wal:l,=aiid.-baard.. f..O-ilc,e, and stated that he folt •something• should _don:e io.;.make.-..tho approach f rom the north- more desirable':- - He,ia w ould also like, to see the:. color- seheme-1 ot: the: restaurant. to .'1_U'sdre_ that it -would be compatible -with the adjacent Mexican.; Import- shop.!­ He therefore requested - that 'the proj'ect be a referred ­:to-'. the - Architectural & Site Design ,,Rev ew- reviews : _. -.Comm: .:- Popp asked what requirement s could b e'pi ace&; 6n the.-.enfire: building, and.Mt,., Boehljo replied - ft -.o within reason. He* t added.• "that 4!.chang6s.-. ed, tol make .,.it comp4ti b.le 'and more attractive, but = - usually -structural -.changes - xe-quired -i when property is. not owned. : ;C.omm. -Vaters -- stated': that 1 ig ht g n , f or _ - the, parking lot in the -.rear :`is not mentioned,, 'and - -he f elt it should be required Mr. Dick Lieb' addressed:- the,-. Commission, , stating.-:that the appli- cant wished to get moving on-> tho:! . If it Twould be appropriate t a ,,�.he suggested that .�m tter-. be resolved by - the staff and Architectural, .;and,.3ite - Des igh _.Revi6w Committee. Comm4• �Bond �stated;he -would fill _inf - Site Design Review Cbmmittit , �e­,fpr Ex"Commissioner ;agreed that a meeting: would-be set! fdr�4:, p.m:,.on Monday., August 11, 1975. -2- Petaluma City Pliming Co - m m ission Minutes„ August 5, 1975 BANK OFMARfN-- - `VARIANCE REQUEST V3-75:' r revi ewed - the.- * , . llow a'second' requ4ist. to-a- f ree - standing: p ign: to be. iu front of Marin.-irr . the�.Bankw"Of!) .the Y- Shopping Center, r ul d:­Nort-h..,. He "then, read.- the ..located.-,At A060 - evar, - 4p pjj can t�-' 8 * ,, w tifteation�;i;for,,a - T he staff, evallu- ato�i was - aso� read; which _stated.­it di&,�not appear- to be appro , riat to grant . a variance. Mr. Briah, Ditectar of the Bank.oftMarin, informed the Commission that the,additional.sign-is desired becausd a great deal--of the :shopping center frontage is not on Pe_t-d- B6ule- vatd,-, and the geople. 'travelling s 6uth,,w'ould not, see it. He -,further advised he felt -it- was- importaht,t.d have, t,hi s sign for 16h...., Mr-: McCarthy stated that thdi f Irst f ew years of . operat Pet.1luma Boulevard' was already proliferated with signs, with . numerou ite' .1 and h6',f elt that' in, all - Signs on ndiv, dual s _ s fairness A- variance should, be grdnted. -'unless -a ;rule was passed. to apply to: =all of -the. . busines'ses... He also, stated he felt the y s i gni- was hec:es,sary because of the position .o the.new Bank of "Marin in the shopping centeti Mr. McCarthy stated that he wo uld' be agreeable to- - retain the % s ign f or-. a., pgb of two years�,_ , or even . to take it',down lif the City not like it after it had' been put up. It was clarifte d,tha,t there would be a...,t,otal of. six signs for 't-he-,Bank I I 'Of 'Matin, 11 M Bp�qhljje� clarifie'd' t1 . i A although there were v plat ons. the Sign Ordinance on Petaluma Bbdlev4rd, ari- existed befor.e� t d.z He, also cl they ex _he, otdinan I ce was. pas e ' a, yariance c(jx!Lld',.not, be..gran't6d'' for a twon-year period.. A short 'discuss ioii.;.:f bllowed.. .--'It -was' the -general feeling, 'of, the. cb not exist to wa - rrant I 'the granting.of' the variance,! and,that' ne gh boring violations were ere tdt 'its approval Comm. Waters _stated :that the: signing a rea-for each tenant should.fpllow th6Ient_-ire-shopping criteria,' and should not pose"ari individual. tenant* problem. Comm. Waters made a motion .to disapprov&Ahe granting of the requested' variance for the second,,free -standing sign.. Comm. Horcita seconded. thd motion w AYES 5 'NOES 0 ABSENT .0 'Chair-man Hill ig,oss advised that the :decision -of the Planning Conimissi C'Ould' be appealed to:. the , City Council - if the appl • cant so desired. Petaluma City bICKSON HILL I t _ PuD REZONINGI PRIVATE STRI REQUEST: I Planning ..Commission.-Minutesi.- ugust 5, 1975 Mr.,, Boehlje_advised that the request. by,'Mr.. Mrs. Ron Nunn 75 f or xezpningy f rom -. Flanned,.-Unit, District ..consisting of seven residential, a PlannedcUnItcDistrict.. consisting of four ­ -residential..lots f . or the was to reduce -, the cost: of Pub1lic improvements . = .,He. further... advised that a parcel ma:p,,,had! been submitted-. f or, the;: subdiviaion into f our lots,, and, -appropr iat e -- zoning. `gas there necessary to conform to the parcel map,. - Mr. Bqehlj,e- dlarifted.< that the street would-;: b6_20-­feet*-­,wid I e--,wi,.'thiti�.,,,t.h,e.30.,�-foo.Lwid&--,,easO-ment.' He furt Advised that .the, lots. would be. sold - individually and cudtop, built, _houses constructed. The Public ic 'Hearing -was 6pened,., Mr.., - Tom Gaf an a-di acent 'qperty . owner,( advis --pr ed-the ,Gahimission that he was in agreement ...with thp"change of lots *.from• seven:.t.o four; "but was concerned. about the treatment of the lot the. 'Pres er vdt-Ion of the .trees Arid what , I storm'drainage would be 'provided. He questioned if; thi and ithe ., ,time .1 ta-state his concern: Mr'., Boehlie replied these items, would come later when the � eng�neering were approved .b , y th . 0- . : City - Engineer,, 'and' advised' 'Mr. Gaf to make his concerns -known to Mr. •raf fey asked what recourse he would have-to protect his,-propdrty rights,. since he'"did not want. dialhage pro , blems. He : was informed that-he:c6uld appeal :any - decision of the.City Engineer and should contact the City ,Engineer 'to find out what requirements were to be placed on the; parcel map. .,r,t was clarified that a lot split of four .or less lots was not required 'to be reviewed by Planning ;Commission or "City Council.;. Chairman H asked who could appeal: ihe decision 'the, Ci E d t hat an�.interested f and O y ngineer _.M_-k.,..Bo6hlje.replIe 't a party 'could do so.. :Mr, ,Jack - Dunaway.i an adjacent, property owner, question location of the road ..Maps werei--presehted for review by the .-audience `ihe Commission-. No other comments were offered from thd and' the. Public. Hearing was closed._ The Public Hearing, was =tbbn reopened to allow - Mr , . -. Bob 'Candee to. speak. - .. He . stated he represented Mr.. and Mrs,.' Nunn and wou ld answer any questions. -Mr. Candee stated that the Sonoma County Water Agency had, reviewed the plans and - submitted' their recommendations I t6ndations to. the City Engineer. He felt that most' of ..the ­ con - cernsexpressed, would be met., Comm. Bond asked if -storm' drain was planned I to run: down tp Str Candee replied' that that matter was being discussed between J oe. oe- Burt . on, eng for the project, and the Cit Engineer in •accordance with the-Sonoma County Water Agency requirements, and :that .the water would have to be led-out-to the street in a proper. 'manner. He further stated that Mr. =,Gaffey should make I his concerns known to ,the City Engineer-and that.,fhe blacktop could also' be• constructed to prevent - water f rom flowing onto Mr.; .Gaffey`-':s property. 4PANNUAL USE REVIEW: The staff report was, briefly r,eviewed.... Comm... Waters questioned if ° the storage container had, actually -been received for the :McDowell Park c Mr. BoPh'ife stated he did, not know,- but would check into the'matter. -5- Petaluma Cit. ' pla nning nning Commission ;Minutes, August S, 1975' • The Public 'Rearing was closed.. 'Comm'., Bond questioned why the change, from seven hots to-- four -lots was requested. -Mr-. Cand'ee advised that it was strictly because -of economics; since sidewalks, gutters, and more road-area-would-be required for seven lots, and therefore would 'make 'it•:uneconomic to•develop. He.:also advised that it was too large a site to leave as it presently exist&. Mr. Cand'ee also indicated the trees near- the private street, that would be -conserved. Mr. Boeh read the .findings that, the Commission, must :make to approve ,a rezoning; Chairman;'Hillgoss quest -oned why a PUD toning wasi requested, and Mr_. .Boehlj;e clarified that if it was zoned R- 1-10,, 000 District' it could be split again at a later date, and PUD rezoning__precluded' that. Comm., Popp made a m, otion to recommend : to .: the- City Council approval of the Planned, Unit :Distr-itt- -.four residential lots with ..find'-ings , as stated.. The ; :motion -was' -seconded by Comm. Horciza. AYES 5' NOES 0 ABSENT' 0 'Comm-, ;Popp made a:motion to recommend the approval - o f , the } private street for thev'Dickson Hill•property to the City . • Council The motion was;seconded by Comm. Waters. AYES 5 NOES. 0 ABSENT 0 DAVID C. NOLE S - C =H M. Boehlj a explained 'that only a small portion of the R -C r. REZONING 'Z$ 7�5: District property located at 709/711 Petaluma Boulevard North ' was proposed for � rezoning would an.even : rezoriin g. The rezonin , zoning boundary and, was the result of..a arcel map .being, submitted.to accommodate Dr_.'Noles' new office on the front !' portion. The Public, 'Hearing was,'opene.d. No comments were offered from the audience and the- Puti-lyic Hearing was closed. Comm. Bond moved that a re'c'ommendation be forwarded' to the Ci Council for approval 6f. the C -H District zoning. Comm. Horcza ,seconded :the emotion. AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 } A, xecess' was- called at 9:20 . p:m. and :the meeting resumed at 9:30 p .m. . 4PANNUAL USE REVIEW: The staff report was, briefly r,eviewed.... Comm... Waters questioned if ° the storage container had, actually -been received for the :McDowell Park c Mr. BoPh'ife stated he did, not know,- but would check into the'matter. -5- Petaluma . Cityj Planning Commission 11 nutes, August 5' 1975 . advised' Perm U2-74, Mr =. Boehl a Lawrence J: Beal thehapplicantahadnreceiveda building permit , p_ prior.to the one year deadline received: an extension o_m the ,permit. until.-Septe 20, .1975. A letter stating these ; facts from Mr. °`Beal was 'then: read.. Mr: Beal was -present -and advised-the Commission that-he was prepared to go ahead with the-project and realized that -no .,further extensions . could be :granted'., The "Commission - therefore determined, no action, ,was' 'necessary at- 'this time.. Mr _, Boehlje reminded the" Commission -of the recent amendment to Article 26 of the. `Zonfng Ordinance whereupon, if a'violation of.a Use Permit, exists, a certified letter is sent to the permittee him that he - has 20' calendar days from the date'tte`letter 'is received to comply. with the provisions ^and conditions of the -Use Permit. If 'after 'thos.e 20 days has elapsed, °the , ,Permittee has `f ailed. to - comply with the provisions and: conditions of the Use Permit, the plan Director shall send a letter uspending the. Use; 'Permit. This suspension would then be in effect - for- '20'calendar days from the .date. of notification. If, after. the 20 .days suspension, 'the Violation has, not been remedied filed,' the Use Permit shall,, be revoked. With regard to Use Permit No. U26 -60,. Al Stack, Mr. Boehlje advised that the adjacent site had been cleaned' up. A short �discus"sion`..1followed ari d, t was: determined that no action is necessary. With regard. to County Use Permit No. 2155, 'C &.W Auto 'Wreckers,, tt`e Commission was advised • the' material was no longer too, visable ab'ove.'the fence. A short discussion followed and'it was determined that no „action is necessary at this time. i The Commission, determ ned 'that certified letters -should - 'be sent with regard to the following Use Permits., - stating :tha - t the permttee: has 20 calendar days from the date the letter - is received . to comply with 'provisions and _condiit ons of the Use Permit: Use.'Permit No, U9 -66 Shell `Company, '100 East Street Use Permit N`o,. U24 -70; Douglas .Oil Company;, -2601 Lakeville Hghway Use Permit No. U3 =72;, Texa6o­1nc., 910 Baywood Drive. Use,:Perm t 'No. U13 -72', Bat.ta'Hid'e; 'Company, 896 Lakeville Highway .Use Permit No.. U.143,, M & M Ice.Vending Machine Company, Copeland Street at East Washington Street Petaluma, 'City ,Planning Commission Minutes., August 5,, 1975 J Use Permit No U6 -73 Petaluma High School.District, SUR Continuation School, Vallejo and Edith Streets C T AREA; Mr..BoehIje advised the. 'Planning Commission that they were asked to recommend a_, survey area to the Redevelopment Agency, which 'would consist ;of possible areas. to be considered for redevelop- went'., but. would not necessarily- mean .that, redevelopment would have'to , in these ;areas. The Commission was further.ad- vised that° in.accotdance with California, Community • Redevelopment Law,, the 'reso'lution designating .a survey.,area or areas shall contain 'the 'following a) A f "finding that the cArea requires, study to determine if a redevelopment project or pr - ojects within said area are feasible; - b) A description of the boundar:ies.of 'the area designated. Mr,. Boeh_ljle :furtther adv ed 'that the next step would be to propose,an approxmate.pro.j'Iect area and suggested -a joint meeting between the Red'evelopment Agency and the Planning Commm ss on, to determine said project 'area. The. Commission was ,in ,agreement with this suggestion. A brief-discussion of the proposed survey area followed. Comm. 'Popp made a.:mot on to forward a resolution to the Redevelopment Agency ,recommending :the survey area as rec• ommended by the staff. The motion was seconded by Comm. Waters ". AYES: 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 0 'Chairman.'H'illigos's .questioned what action had•.been taken on the letter from Mr. C: C: 'Morris regarding the street sign post for .Marian Way. Mr. "Boehlj'e 'replied that he had,been unaware of the Letter,. :but would forward it 'to the Traffic Committee for action. The Commission was advsed-:that in accordance wsth the Commis- sioh a resolution - regarding the implementation measures' ,for the East Washington S;tre'et Widening had been prepared: He then read the ,resoau_tion .s,tating the three environmental protection measures suggested. Cbmm. ° _.Bond made a ;motion to forward the' resolution -to the City 'Council. The motion was- seconded.by .Comm. Hortiza. AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT' 0 -7- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, August 5, 1975 ADJOURNMENT': Chairman Hiliigosss 'apponted'Comm. Anthony L: Wright to serve on the Architectural Site Design Review ;Committee to fill the vacancy of John Balshaw until October 1975. Comm'. Popp made' a motion t -hat '.Comm.• Horciza serve as Vice- Chairman until October '1975 *to fill. the position vacated by John Ba_llshaw. The motion was - seconded by Comm. - Waters. AYES, 5 NOES '0 ABSENT C Comm: 'Bond questioned if it was, - -possible to receive cost factors for public, - improvements 1r 'the. City .Engineer .re" lating to t he Bodega Avenue [Paula' Lane :area. Mr. Boehlie advised he'wou -ld discuss the matter with the City Engineer. _g'