Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/20/1976t.. A.,;G_E N-,D A's. .. r PETALUMA:CITY­PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20.,,1976., REGULAR; CITY COUNCIL` CHAMBERS; CITY`''HALL', x'-f-" J PETALUMA;' CALIF.ORNIA V. The' -Planning Commission- encourages„applicantsTor='their.' epresentatives to be available-a,t:-the: meetings .- to- answer:'.questfons,,,-so,'.that :no 'agenda•.items. need be . deferred 'to'a later date -due -'to a lack of pertinent information: PLEDGE ALLECIANCE TO.THE FLAG ROLL CALL: Comm. Bond Head Hillfigosa Horeiza T� Popp TT Waters' Wright _ STAFF: Frank B. Gray, Community,Development & Services Coordinator. APPROVAL.OF MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE TAMAR SUBDIVISION - FINAL MAP: TWIN THEATERS - SITE DESIGN',REVIEW: WILLIAM ARMS"STORAGE BLDG . - E,. L; Q . EVALUATION & SITE', DESIGN REVIEW: MILT FORMAN - E'.I.Q.. EVALUATION '& SITE DESIGN REVIEW: YOUNG AMERICA HOMES - USE PERMIT U5-76:' Consideration of .the;Final Map for the proposed Tamar Subdivision consisting, of lots to be located at Tamar -Drive between-crinella-Drive and the proposed extension of Park Lane. Site .design review 0onsideration6 forthe proposed :Twin Theater. to.be located'in'the Washington Square Shopping Center on .'South -Mcpo ►e11, Blvo, Environmental Impact Questionnaire. evaluation and site design review consideration for a proposed mini -warehouse structure to be loca'te4'at Lo.t #12,'Transport'Way, submittedby Romac Pacific Company.for William Arms. .Environmental Impact Questionnaire evaluation and site design review consideration jor a.proppsed-4-unit addition to the Cherry Hill residenti`o1•complex.located at 180 Cherry Street submitted by Richard Lieb on behalf of Milt -Forman. Public Hearing to consider a Use Permit application to allow a dance studio in the Greenbriar Planned Vnit Development medical and professional office complex located at 55 Maria Drive.. r a MINUT,.E S PETALUMA_,CITY'PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 1976 •REGULAR MEETING 7- 30,P.M,.. CITY COUNCILCHAMBERS, CITY HALL.'. =. f PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm: Bond*,,Hilligo,§s,, Hdrei'za, Popp, Vaters,, Wright *Comm. Bond -arrived, at 7':-45,p.m_ ABSENT: Comm. Head STAFF: Frank B.. Gray, Acting Planning. Director Fred E. Tarr,_ Assoc1ate Planner APPROVAL. OF- MINUTES.: .The;.:minutes_: of. April,6,,, 1976_,, ;were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE: 1... The,Commiss_oners wer_e..;reminded to turn in their Conflict of-Interest.Statements. .2. Mr,' Gray informed. the•Commission that a referral had -been received from the'Folice Chief with regard to a .,;. :.. request; to remove; a.,parking; space in front of Sprouse,Reitz,,for the..purp.o'se of locating a Yellow ,Cab. taxi. Stand., He,further advised that the matter ;;. , . . , :had; been, discussed:, at the ,.Traf-fic Committee meeting, ,and .,,the ,appli_cant ha adv.ised, there was no need to ® , take,:action at,this time_,s.ince„the regular taxicab) s.;tand used, -,by Mr..- Leo. Neilsen in his taxicab service r; was `being utilized while, be„ was. -in the hospital; Mr. Gray therefore rec.ommended,'that the matter be held in abeyance until the situation changes, The Commission. y . - concurred .. .. TAMAR SUBDIVISION_-' Mr... Grayoadvised ahe-Commission:that the Final Map for FINAL MAP: the- 1:4.-lot Tamar., ;Subdivision , to be located at ,Tamar Drive between ,.Crinella,Dr ve and.th"e proposed extension of Park Lane -had' -been submitted in accordance with the conditions required by the -Tentative Map. -He also stated that the appropr,ia.te:letters-f.r.om the City Engineer and Acting Planning,Director had been furnished certifying that the -' F'irial"Map. conformed...'to, the- regulations of the• Zoning 4and ;. Subdivision.Ordinances. The public improvement require - menu we're questioned,;.:and Mr.. Gray advised that public r improvement plans.,had.'been,.submitted and been approved 'Engin'eer.. by the - City. Comm. Hilligoss moved to iecommend'.to the City Council that .the. Final. Map be ;approved As submitted. The motion was, seconded ,by Comm., .,Wr.ight. AYES 67 NOES_ ,: 0 ; ABSENT 1 " Petaluma City -Planning Commission Minutes; April h: 1976 TWIN THEATERS -- SITE Mr. Gray explained the .p.roposal "for the Twin Theaters' to: • , " DESIGN REVIEW:-- be located in the•Washington Square, Shpp-ping `Cen"ter 2,19 South McDowel:l,.Bivd. He stated that the staff had 'been concerned 'that' the'; other meichants ` h-the" shopping " center, might _object to, the" location of``tlie "Twin Theaters but letters received from numerous tenants in the shopping center were very positive and indicated no objection to the proposed use. Mr. Gray advised, that 'the•Archi't'ectura�l°& Si"te Design - - - - -Review Committee -had- recommended; deletion. ,of .Condition .#4 of the staff report.. Comm. Popp, a,member of:the f Committee; stated "that.'the Commissioners present did "not'". feel .that -,the, parking..directional.,signsls.ta,ting. "No_,._ theater parking" could actually be enforced,,.and also did not.*fedl they were 'ap'props ate, since other parkingareas were available: Comm.' Wright' questioned- 'if -the. '3-foot high directional ". . signs .were"actually .safe. -Mr; Gray replied.'tha't, the area would; have 'to •be plrysically checked out; and suggested, . that' -the "directional 's gfis-•cou.id be painted on the parking ' surface ' or-'. placed on •the' islands . The hours of operation ."were' discussed Nand it' 'was- clarified that there would be some :corif lict betiaeeri,`'the, 'theaters I hours of operation r ' `an'd.that''•:of- other shops 141, the: center . The Commission was'also":informed .tha't=-,the City could not enforce parking " on pr. va.te ,-property, ,but` shou.ld. indicate a desirable park- '' ing'arrangement at; this time. A short. -discussion followed'," -after which .Comm.. Wright - - - - '_moved, "to -approve the site design, subject to.the,.cond'itions r. . _ .. of approval as. revised. by the Architectural &, Site Design Review' Committee';' with- the exception that -Cond'i'tion 43' be reworded that parking directional' signs shall'be painted on the `parking surface. The'motion"was seconded by Comm. Waters". .. ;. AYES" 6" NOES 0 .. ABSENT WILLIAM ARMS._STORAGE Mr. Gray briefly reviewed the proposal for:.a"mini-warehouse BLDG. - E 'I,:Q:. storage building _-o-.be "located. on"".Lot #12 of the North San EVALUATIONT & SITE ' Franci'sco - Ir dus'trIal Park #1 on `Tra.nsp.or 1, Way. . He then DESIGN REVIEW: read the•cond'itiohs recommended` by`theArchitecutral & Site Design Review Committee.' Mr.'Gray 'advised the. Commission..that it was his: -personal feeling that -the proposed:+'build'irig -colors of Sunset. Orange and Frost White indica.ted,in Condition #7 were not'appro- �priate for ,a building_-'.ihat is visible from the' freeway, - - -, since -these, colors.Twould 'be "very.s.tark .against_.the .landscape and would not be-.compati"b'le.to those in the area. Mr. IPAM j� Petaluma City Planning. Commissionµ,M nutes,-April 20:,.1976-'.- :• .' :Don Petro,' clad-ied;<•that the-•roof';of the .building would be"griay,' and ..a.` discussion- f'bllo,wed"--with regard to the a`c2ep,ta'b l ;ty -of:' th&,'pr;oposed colors:. Chairman Horciza - asked `th6:-vapplicana if %. the''future' bu ldings proposed = were to,:11be•, the::same", color: Mr:: ~Petro replied that they wou=ld:"_b'e'' the,, same color, and .indicated their location on - the,, area -map... .Healso expressed-.bis client's concern - " that,,., the::building would •app.ear mediocre amidst the tan an'd brown.adj..acent` buildings:. -Mr.,. Gray clarified that the proposed building is 170' x 30.', and 10' high with -'double •,Bayy�entrances..;, ,-He also .state'd that he did not feel.: it',was_-necessa_r-,y-: for, -the, building to attract the ' attention. o:f ,_clients, since --he ,felt that most of the cli-ents>woul'd-,­be res%identa,or­ businesses from Petaluma, and .it should therefore present a low, profile in an area ' set aside,for industrial development. The applicant uoi,ced•,:his .,+disagreement.,• 'stating: -that transients were attracted; _to, this ,type ofserv.ice,..and it would be a d'ef. nite.. asset of the- f;ac li-ties..were easier to find. He `also, stated' he did_ not _feel that all the buildings in this !area should. be the same­colox'. Comm. Pop ,.inoved..to;;direct the Planning -Director to prepare and -post a•. Negative,.Decla,ration for the project. The motion was seconded by Comm. Wright. ® ";AYES• 6 :NOES 0; ABSENT • " 1 Comm. Popp moved to approve,the site design review with conditoris of approVal'as agreed upon by the Architectural & Site'Design Review Committee. The motion was seconded " _ ....- ,by •„Comm ..Warters,:. _ .. • rAYES..- 6 •.' NOES .-0 ;-::ABSENT,. 1 MILT, FORMAN 4'=. E.•I..Q: ,Mr,. Gray. ;briefly 'explained ,;then, -request by Richard Lieb on EVALUATION',&,:SI-TE b'ehal-f of•,:M l•t,•Forman:•for..a;,proposed 4-unit addition to DESIGN REVIEW:. the.Cherry.Hi11, r.esidentlal,,complex located at 180 Cherry Street. : -He :.fur,ther advised the Commission of the history -.of the dev„elopment--•by stating that 'the existing complex �:had`-:been -constructed in.197% .and, -yin 1972 36 residential .":units ;had been applied.;;f,on through the Residential Develop- :;,merit Contr:o,l• ;System and. subsequently alloted. At that -time the developer :gave an.pp;tion.:on his property to the Camille project adjacent,.and•transfer of allotments from Mr,, Forman, to Camlle.Enterprses, was requested and granted - .: .by,the Cit•y-:Council.•. Camille,;Enterprises went into bank- `._ ruptcy' -:and when •,.the,;allotments. for the entire project " ,were. being .consider-ed .for..rescis'sion by the City Council, Mr. Forman requested that his allotment be returned to him; ® this request was denied by the City Council. _.. -3- A .� Petaluma City Planning Commission•Minutes,;-April;20; 1.976, <, _ Mr: Gray explained tl'ia;t.;Mr.--F.orman,therefore -is pro- j > posing,: to develop only four uni�ts%at, this tame out of the ;total . of, 36,, which• wonild, ;exempt the project from the, Resid'ential.-.Development:_Control, 'Sys,tem. He added .that . the. exact, •plan,. asi -submitted _ in..19:7T for, the 36-unit project was -not under consideration, but since only four units, were -•being..develo.ped-at:this• .time, the conditions were therefore different., than -_what,. would-. be - recommended for the entire 36-unit",development.. Mr.- Gray.advised_-th_.at.,..the.-Architectural & Site Design `Review Committee hadateviewed.the'project„and concurred with_the .staff',recommended-conditions of approval.. He �= then read::the'. five conditions as: stated in* the, staff report, 'Comm: Hilligoss.- questioned: how. .many additional. trips would be generated .from this 4-unit,-development. Mr. Gray =replied that there would be 7:to--10 trips.a day per' unit. = a The access, was briefly: discussed. ` Mr.. Gray advised .that n it was planed. that -Liberty Street would be. constructed �,' thrqugh -in the future; ;and that further, development of :. :the Formanproperty- would probably, have to be restricted until that materialized. . Comm..Wright moved to -direct the Planning-.-Dir.ector to prepare and post a,.Negative'Declaration ,for the project.. , The motion.was seconded. by•Comm..Popp.• AYES 6 .. NOES 4:. -_ABSENT, , 1 Comm.. Bond expressed. his concern: that-. the ,araf:fc pattern was already- inad:equate-.for the.ste.without add- ing additional traffic. Mr-: Gray replied- that .the •City _- Engineer: had to.look::.at the.. project in relation to what effect: it would -have on,.. the .public street and not to the' - :adequacy of; the'.•private:.street;. _•He'further•explained; _ that the, original .approval for_.the 36 units: included:; ; . .. - . Providing a, 'second, access .And -'a.- storm drainage sy"s.tem,, but the. •City''Eng-irieer..felt that at. this time these. requirements', were unjustifiable for only four units, =sirice..h6t too much. traffic -would-be generated.. He clarified that -'"any further -development would necessi- :tate'an,'ad'ditional°access. and publ-icimprovements. Mr.. _ Forman -stated'`--tha.t by'the time ..he 'was .ready. to construct Phases. 3 and,'4�-the property adjacent would probably be developed and a ..second .access.-.ava-ilabae,. Comm. Bond ' -replied `that..lie.._under-s.tood:_the;problem, but still: felt :=bad-_situation . to _'add -:more units .to the. private. ° - drive --because he :per.sonally,. did ,not feel it. was safe. . -4- I• Petaluma City Planning Commission.-Minutes,,Ap.ril,,20,, ,-1976,1 Comm,. Wright moved to.,,grant "thLLe site design subject -to. E.; the recommend`ed'by-.the staff and concurred ,c_onditions.as with by the Architectural&Site Design Review Committee. Comm. Popp seconded the'mo'tion: - AYE'S 6S .NOES, 0 ABSENT 1 rr YOUNG' AMER"ICA HOMES - Mr. Fred Tarr;! explained the ',re.quest for a Use Permit to USE -PERMIT U5=76: ,:. allow' a dance' studio''ifi th6."G'reerib`riar Planned Unit ' Deuelopment'med cal'and-professional office complex located:,4,V-55'Maria Drive. Comm.,'Hilligoss questioned if :there,'were. any,;.otner occupants: ` The applicant replied tha"t. there would'be other o'ctuparifs, but the space had not 1�edh rented as yet. .The Public,.Hearing was opened;'no comments were offered _ fr"om-'the audie"nce,and.the Public'Hearing was closed. - Comm. Hill gos's moved .:to_;grant`.'the Use Permit; Comm. Waters, seconded, the' motion. NOES 0 . ABSENT 1• ZONING .ORDINANCE, #l0.72 . ' Mr-. +,Gray, •briefly' reviewed "thee ordinance changes and why Comm:: 'Wr,ght N.,C.St..-.:E.I;..Q;, they had been"initiated. questioned why EVALUATION & PROPOSED there was"'no "mention 'of the setbacks in the AMENDMENTS: rlandsc'aping mobilehome parks. Mr. Gray'referr:ed him to Section 8'.,1-50.3:; •'which -related to.'landscap ing--that-would be -- -•---' required at the time of site. design review.. Heexplained a;.. to the Commission 'that the 'mob lehome park ordinance"was a model ordinance and had been applied in the past. The Public Hearing..to.discuss the E.I.Q. was opened; no comments_ were offered from the audience and the Public ' Hearing was closed. ­.Comm:-Hilligoss moved to direct the Planning Director to prepare and post a Negative Declaration f,or the -project. The motion, was seconded -by- Comm. Wright,. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1, The Public Hearing to consider the Zoning. Ordinance amend- ments was opened; no':comments were offered from the audi-. ence and the Public Hearing was closed. Comm.. Watersmoved to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance modifications to -the City Council. Comm. Popp seconded,the motion. AYES. 6... NOES 0 ABSENT 1 -5- Petaluma City Planning Cominissioi Minutes; ' April' 20',` 106 OTHER BUSINESS:` r, 'The possibility of a 'tour ofcompleted site designs �• " and public faclite_s`was discussed.. Comm. Waters also :. .- " gg" 's'ted an open house for a walking tour of the su e settl'ii g •ponds.: Comm. Wright informed_'''' the," Commission he -had -.attended an excellent - at' the ,University- of CAIiforn'ia on the. preservation• of, -historic, buildings and districts, ... and. suggested" that perhaps; .'Carol" Galbraith from the '. National Trust for.Histor," c Preserva'tion,should .be invited to talk -to the,`Commission., Mr. -Gray .replied _ that_ a 'representative from the Trust .had -addressed the Commission when.thd�'liistoric ordinance -.was. adopted, but -he also thought it would be worthwhile to.'ask Ms. Galbraith to give a' presentation;. Comm.. Waters expressea °concern'with the City-CouncilI's reversal of the Commission with' regard to. the Larry Parks'variance,. and questioned the Commission's posi-. tion,` in'_that the Council' had.. also expressed some. unhappiness with the.sgn'ordinanc_e. Mr. Gray replied. that .the staff had :r:ecommended to the Chief Administrator that'a joint stud yA session° should-be'.'held ;of -the Planning Cbmmi:ssion- .and -Ci,ty:..Council to review '-the :s_ign violation notices; that. have gone. out so far, what .type. of general violations, existed and which violations were most :.frequent, ands in '`that manner get some dir.e'c'toii from the- 'Council on „ Iow' toproceed: ;. ADJOURNMENT .,., There- peing,no fur�ther.`'business; the meeting adjourned at 10 0