HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/02/1976I -
4
A G E N D A
PETAL'UMA C
TY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 1976 .
REGULAR MEETING 7'!30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIh "CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
The Plannirig , Commission encourages applicants' orlthe:ir representatives to be
g a lac 1 sent a. no agenda items need be
w available at the meetings to answer questions so tht
a
deferred to a later date - due to" k -of'"'perti nformation,
` PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE -FLAG
ROLL CALL: Comm. Bond �� Head Hill- goysHorciza� Popp
Waters 'Wright
STAFF`: Dennis Boehlje,,,Planning Director
APPROVAL OF ��MINUTES
I
CORRESPONDENCE
I I
CONSENT CALENDAR: Joe L. Long -'Site design review for proposed duplex to
. ,:. .
be located-on the"same. site with an existing single-
District.
at 320;English Street in an R -C
t,,
LARRY PARKS REALTY ConsIderation,of a variance application to allow a free-
' - VARIANCEIV1 -76: standing sign for a use which is not a drive -in type
9 use for the proposed Larry Parks Realty to be located
at 829 E. Washington Street.,.
r �r
E.I.Q. EVALUATION & Environmental Impact Questionnaire evaluation and site
r SITE DESIGN - design review consideration of a proposed by
HARDY /GAVRILOFF Ronald Hardy and Martin Gavrilof'f for property located
I:.
FOURPLEX :' at 951'.' Magnolia. Avenue in an R= C °tDistrict.
EMPIRE AUTO' BODY - Public Hearing to evaluate the Impact
E.I ,Q.. `EVAL `& "Questionnaire and consider ''an application by Molly &
USE PERMIT -,76: Roberto `Larga:espada to allow an auto body shop in an
!w' existing building located at 1304 -1308 Scott Street
in.an M -L District.
OTHER BUSINESS:' Adjournment to a Study Session to consider strategy
t Ir I„
for rev ewing fora new 5 -year plan.
: a
PETAL'Um CITY PLANNING CbkkIS SION MAR 1976
RE
GUCR MEETING 730
CITY OUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL 'RETALUkA,'CALIFORNIA
PRESENT: Comm.* Bond, . Hoiciz'a,. P6pp Wright
ABSENT: Comm. Head, .Waters
,_.,
STAFF: Dennis -Boehljelp Planning Director
APPROVAL 0'F
0
The minutes of Fdb 76 eke approved as
1 9 w
submitted.
CORRESPONDENCE:
A'letter addressed to the City Council from John Balshaw
was read'" to the Commission vihich stat that a petition had
been s° igned',by 191 residents, d"' expres sed the desire to
S
LARRY.PAR
on-
see i h""' h housin allocation I be con -
at.t e present ousin on
_Si E -
_t 41 t
ed,,�;dhd that the e be'clUzen. committee inv6lvement'in
- the' formtila'tion of the new 'EDP,
.4 J`
st 6 imately a year ago
Adin& 'pig ��ad approx
CONSENT CALENDAR:
es i h e 6 for a proposed duplex to
oe L :'''Long = r Vi
.:
be located,on the same site with an existing single-family
M
I N
U
T
E
S
PETAL'Um CITY PLANNING CbkkIS SION MAR 1976
RE
GUCR MEETING 730
CITY OUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL 'RETALUkA,'CALIFORNIA
PRESENT: Comm.* Bond, . Hoiciz'a,. P6pp Wright
ABSENT: Comm. Head, .Waters
,_.,
STAFF: Dennis -Boehljelp Planning Director
APPROVAL 0'F
0
The minutes of Fdb 76 eke approved as
1 9 w
submitted.
CORRESPONDENCE:
A'letter addressed to the City Council from John Balshaw
was read'" to the Commission vihich stat that a petition had
been s° igned',by 191 residents, d"' expres sed the desire to
S
LARRY.PAR
on-
see i h""' h housin allocation I be con -
at.t e present ousin on
_Si E -
_t 41 t
ed,,�;dhd that the e be'clUzen. committee inv6lvement'in
- the' formtila'tion of the new 'EDP,
.4 J`
st 6 imately a year ago
Adin& 'pig ��ad approx
CONSENT CALENDAR:
es i h e 6 for a proposed duplex to
oe L :'''Long = r Vi
.:
be located,on the same site with an existing single-family
re :'Ot 320 English 'S'trb6t' an' R-C District:
n
si e"
--illss moe.1to approve i Consent Calendar item
.". .
Comm H igd moved
1 I
.1 1 1.. i I I .
with c ns of app rova l : , " " '- re ' 'by the staff
w P,
,as
and .Architectural "& ii4lew'Cob'mittee. The
'motion , was seconded.by Comm,.' Popp.
AYES '5 NOES ''0' 'ABS 2
S
LARRY.PAR
he 'r e quest""to . d f " k e e t andfn g sign in f ront of the
_Si E -
f off l 6eli i ted at' 82§ ta ashington Street
ksReglt I oca
&
b"rief ly reviewed. 5eh1je explained that a free -
reviewed,.
.4 J`
st 6 imately a year ago
Adin& 'pig ��ad approx
t'of another project on the sifedue to .4 staff
As par -
?, I "' - 1 . ' , . .
d building set con-
and ""a Vi,
: - ' I' _" '' _- 't " ' ' I ` ' di ng-
fbim'to o requirements-o"allow free - st
form
ardifig
He also advised thb:t't e City would be forw arding
"letters ' viola"t"ors'of the - sign ordinance in.the near
r and the staff therefore
future sta on Petal a,,tivd
recommended against. approval, of - this variance since similar
s we re' s�cheduled tor abatement.
te :
Co1fim'.''Hillig6st" ques ione wl�ai type "of would be
allowed tinder, the ordinance ., 'Mr. Boeh1je replied that the
-not be of a' r e- - 6tandinR or' 'a roof sign
"d would bfil b e pla on 'the building itself with a
only p ace
maximum Aprojection of * . two` feet; 'He also clarified that
the use would have to be a drive-in use in order to qualify
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, March 2,. 1976
for a free - standing sign,, and although he did not;.classify •
a real estate off ce'as a drive -in use; it was s4ubject to
interpretation.
Mr Larry Parks addressed the Commission, informing them...
that'he felt' it was a drive -in use since the site was
located in an area where on- street.parkingwas'not allowed'
and foot traffic 'was knot expected. He also ;informed the `
Commission that,the sgn.would not be visible` until.a
motorist was directly - ' . front of 'the building if °the 'sign.
was placed on the building In to •an
inquiry ,,Mr., Parks stated that he expected .a lot of his..
business to be generated from people driving into "town' and'
stopping when they saw his sign. Comm. Popp s.tated,he
agreed that the `sign was necessary, since t•would- be hard
to find, the-business without the sign.
Mr..Dick'Lieb;.archiltect,for the project, informed the
Commission he did not.,feel that the'past.approval of the
free - standing ,sign had actually been a staff error. Me
stated 'that he"felt the appropriate f "indings. necessary to
grant.a.variance:could be determined in this' nstance,.and
expressed the, to , change~the ordinance'to only - .requ re
a 10 -foot setback fora free - standing sign rather, than the,
current 30 feet Mr Lieb alsotquestioned as, to whether'
letters enforcing the sign abatement policy actually
going °to 'be 'mailed, since he had been informed by 'the, Direc- •
for of Community Services. the City intended to review
its sign ordinance. rather than send out the letters to
violators.
Mr. Boehlje explained that the approval of prior sign
had admittedly been a staff .error, and he knew nothing
about the comment that 'the City intended to study the sign
, ordinance instead of,a_bating - the existing violations. He
informed. the .Commission that „ the first 1et,t.ers were
scheduled to be ,sent out 'next 'week to people•on Petaluma ”
Blvd.,,, since 80% of, the businesses there were in violation
of the ordinance,. Mr. Boehljealso advised that a 90 -day
period would.beallowed.fpr action on the sign violations.
Comm, Bond quest oned•.if the City '; Council had n•fact given
;. approval for forwarding of, the letters citing violations and
if they were willing . to.stand behind the 9'0 -day 'period
allowed for- conformance Mr Bgehlje replied that the matter
had been Aiscussed at a study session approximately S month
ago ,,,and. the City Council;had that the staff was
to proceed with ;:enforcement of the, ordinance.. The City
Attorney had also advised that the only method of handling.
the matter would,be,t0 proceed, the ordinance was on
the books,.
Comm...Wright • questioned, If there °had been any variances
. ,grant ..:for sighs on "Washington Street: Mr. Boehl'je replied
1 -2-
i
Petaluma City
Planning Commiss'on_Minutes °, March 2, 1976
that no wariances� had been', granted to his knowledge, but in
IJ*
reviewing some ; prod -ects , for,'site 'design changes to their
es "tablishments, the. staff report had reflected the fact that
the :non - conforming. existing sgns..caould have to be abated
l
in January o;f 1976.. Mr. Lieb informed the. Commission that
d
they " hddl approved, a ' standing sign for Davis Realty on
East Washington; S�tr,eet within the last year. '. Comm. `Wright
'
expressed concern that gran` g
p tin ' of the variance would set
a precedent for other real estate offices.
is
A disciussion followed'on the size and location of the sign.
Mr. advised that,- if approved, the staff recommended
the sign;be lowered to ll2 feet and moved to the other side
of: "the driveway. He then read the four findings that must
b e ma to'grant th variance -.
Comm. Bond.-'.moved to table "the matter until the staff came to
'
agreement
n a with the applicant on the size and location of
i and until Comm. Hilli o'ss could obtain a committment
i
from the City Council with regard to the sign abatement
program -. The motion died f'or. aa`ck of a second.
Comm Wright.moved.that variance not be allowed. The
motion di:e& for lack of 'a second.'
Comm. Hill oss moved
g to table the variance until the staff
and a' licant -could work out'an agreeable sign and location.
pp
The motion was seconded by,Comm,. Popp. Mr. Boehlj,e asked
I"
the a 1 cant if he wi 1
p' p shed to make 'any concessions at this
time wit g e sign so that action could be taken
tMrth r
on'the "variance. L'ieb replied" "that they would be 'willing
to move the'sign to the opposite.side.of the driveway and
` lower' it to 112 feet.' Comm. 'Hill igoss and Popp therefore
• � 'motions.
withdrew their moti'o''
.Popp 'moved' to a' prove the variance based on the recom-
ffiendations "of 'the staff 'for the change in location and size
of th , :.
e : sign, ' and make the f our'° f indings required to approve
v ariaAce.. The motion was seconded by Comm. Hilligoss,
Co mm.. Bond stated he did "not 'feel the sign under considera-
tonwas the'real issue, but rather it was the.crediblity
of the abatement program''.. H' expressed his feelings that a
variance should not be'granted if the City is going to have
'an "abatement' program.
4
..
AYES 2 NOES' 3 ABSENT 2
Comm'.' Bond,quualif ied his "No" vote as stated above. Comm.
Wright•qualified`his° "No" vote by "Stating that although a
hardship did exist,. he felt a variance should not be- granted
unless'a great hardship Chairman Horciza qualified
his "No" vote by stating he felt'the Commission must uphold
the credibility of the abatement program.
-3-
a
Petaluma.City Planning Commission Minutes March..2, 1976
-4-
Mr,. Boehlje informed the.applicant, that the request ,for a
variance had been denied : and he,tad ten days in which to
appeal. decision of the ; Commission..to the City Council.
E.I.Q. EVALUATION,&
Mr.:Boeh,lj,e briefly explained the proposal to build two
SITE,;DESIGN. REVIEW
duplexes it' 951 Magnolia. Avenue an R -C :District.
- HARDY. /GAVRILOFF
industrial building in an M -L District,
FOURPLEX:
Comm. H lligoss questioned, if the property would have to
be filled. Mr. Ron Hardy replied that there was a natural
drainage ditch that would ,empty into the creek and also the
back of the lo,;t sloped down towards the creek, and the
water therefore.dd' not collect.
Comm. Wright moved to direct the Planning Director to
prepare and`post a Negative Declaration for the project.
The motion was seconded by Comm. Bond.
AYES • 5 NOES '0 ABSENT.
Comm..Hilligoss moved to approve the site design with
'
conditions of approval as recommended by the staff and
the Architectural ,& Site Design Review Committee. The
motion was seconded by .Comm. Bond ,
pare;and post z, Ne.ga.tive Declaration for the project..
AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2 ='
-4-
EMPIRE AUTO. BOP-f.,-
Mr,. Boehlje briefly reviewed the Iiequest by Molly '& Roberto
E.I.Q EVALUATION &
Largaespada to allow..an auto body,shop in an ,existing
USE PERMIT 63-i61
industrial building in an M -L District,
Comm. Wright, questioned if it was'`normal. procedure to
require that the exterior doors on,the shop remain closed.
Mr. Lar aes ad'a., son of the applicants, also stated they
g P
did not understand.why the. doors,shouId remain closed,
since%it was felt.this would give'the appearance that the
shop was not. open for- 'busines -s.. He advised that the
business was trying to obtain a_portable paint booth with
its own ventilation'and lighting systems,,and that all
automobiles would be.worke.d on inside the building and
would: not be stored
'
The Public Hearin to evaluate
,g luate the E.I.Q. was opened. No
comments were offered and the Public Hearing was closed.
Comm.. Wright moved to direct the Pla'nnng'Director to pre-
pare;and post z, Ne.ga.tive Declaration for the project..
The motion was second,ed by. Comm. Hillgoss:
AYES 5 NOES . 0' ABSENT 2
The Public Hearing to consider the Use Permit. was opened;
no comments were offered and the Public Hearing was closed.
-4-
,Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes., March 2, 1976
Co to approve the Use Permit based on the
findings andconditions ,set forth in the staff report, with
PP
the exception that "with exterior doors closed." should be
stricken from Condition ll. The motion was seconded by
Comm. Wright.
lh
AYES. 5 NOES 0 ABSENT 2
ADJOURNMENT: There:b.eing no further business, the Commission adjourned
to a study session to consider the strategy for reviewing
the policies for a new 5 -year plan at 8:45 p.m.
Chairman
Attest:
SIZ