Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/20/1976The-Planning.Commission ` encoura es,,agplicanti`o6e_ =their. representatives to be available- at =-the : meetings .- to-answer•.questfons,,,-so, that o- 'agenda ..items. need be . deferred to,a later date -du:e to a lack of pertinent information: PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO.THE FLAG • g. � ROLL CALL: Comm. Bond ._'He Hillfi oss Horciza Popp Waters' Wright STAFF: Frank B. Gray, Community . m ent & Services Coordinator. APPROVAL. OF ;MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE N -;DAs Consideration of .the Final Map for the proposed Tamar PETALUMA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 1976 REGULAR; MEETING " TWIN THEATERS - CITY COUNCIL` CHAMBERS; CITY` HALL p ' '' xt , > " J PETALUMA;' CALIFORNIA WILLIAM ARMS" STORAGE Environmental Impact Quest ionnaire evaluation and site BLDG. - E,.I,,Q. design review consideration for a proposed mini - warehouse The-Planning.Commission ` encoura es,,agplicanti`o6e_ =their. representatives to be available- at =-the : meetings .- to-answer•.questfons,,,-so, that o- 'agenda ..items. need be . deferred to,a later date -du:e to a lack of pertinent information: PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO.THE FLAG • g. � ROLL CALL: Comm. Bond ._'He Hillfi oss Horciza Popp Waters' Wright STAFF: Frank B. Gray, Community . m ent & Services Coordinator. APPROVAL. OF ;MINUTES CORRESPONDENCE TAMAR SUBDIVISION - Consideration of .the Final Map for the proposed Tamar FINAL MAP: Subdivision consisting, of "fourteen lots to be'located at Tamar Drive between Crinella - Drive and the proposed extension `of Park sane. TWIN THEATERS - Site design review ,c onsideratio ns for the proposed :Twin SITE DESIGN ";REVIEW: " Theaterr to,be located n the Washington Square Shopping Center'o McD0;0ell,'Blv0:, WILLIAM ARMS" STORAGE Environmental Impact Quest ionnaire evaluation and site BLDG. - E,.I,,Q. design review consideration for a proposed mini - warehouse EVALUATION &SITE, structure to be located -At Lqt 412, Transport Way, ., DESIGN REVIEW: submitted' by Romac Pacific Company.for William Arms. MILT FORMAN - E.I.Q.. °Envir.onmental Impact Questionnaire evaluation and site EVALUATION & SITE design review consideration for a proposed 4 -unit addition DESIGN REVIEW: to the Cherry Hill res denti�l•compiex.located at 180 Cherry . Street submitted by Richard Lieb on behalf of Milt- Forman. YOUNG AMERICA HOMES - Public Hearing to consider I Us Permit application to allow USE PERMIT U5 -76:' a dance studio in the Greenbriar Planned Vnit Development medical and professional office complex located at 55 Maria Drive.. r a F •' 31 M I ,N U T _E S PETALUMA.CITY'PLANNINb COMMISSION APRIL 20, 1976 •REGULAR MEETING 7:30,P.M .. a CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL.' " PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: Comm: Bond *, Hilligos " "s,- Hdre1za, Popp, Va ,, Wright *Comm. Bond arrived, at 7':-45;.p.m:_ " ABSENT, Comm. Head STAFF: Frank B.. Gray, Acting Planning. Director Fred E.. Tarr,,,. Associate Planner APPROVAL. ,OF- MINUTES.: The minutes: o;f . April_ '6,,, 1976_, were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE: 1,.- The Commissioners: were..;r`eminded to turn in their Conflict of- Interest.Statements. 2., Mr., Gray informed the. that a referral had -been, received from the. Police Chief with regard to a request to remove _a.,parking space in front of Sprouse Reitz',for the..purpose of locating a Yellow Cab. taxi. Stan d„- :He .further advised that the matter had been,:discussed:,,at the Traf�f'ic Committee meeting, .and .,the, aapplicanf had, advised, there was no need to ® take: action . at , this time_ regular taxicabi stand used by Mr.- -Leo Neilsen in his taxicab service r ; was being utilized while he, 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,. Cray advised the Commission the Final Map for FINAL MAP: the 14.. -lot 'Tamar., Subdivision to be located at ,Tamar Drive '' _x .- P._'%i between..Crinella,Drive and the posed extension of Park Lane-had'-been submitted in ,acc'ordance with the conditions required by the - Tentative Map. -He also stated that the appropriate letters from the Cit. Engineer and Acting Planning!I)1rector had been furnished certifying that the Final "Map conformed...'to, the- regulations of the Zoning -and Subdivision.. Ordinance s. The ub improvement . require- G l;ic , ray advised that public ments •we're questioned ,.:and Mrp r improvement plans ; had.'been :.submitted and been approved by the City Engineer.:- Comm. Hilligoss moved to iecommend' the City Council that .the Final, Map be ;approved As submitted. The motion was ,by Comm..:Wright. c. S AYES 6 ;- NOES 0 ABSENT i'" Petaluma City-Planning.Cormnission Minutes','* April 20 , 19 9 IPAM TWIN THEATERS-7 SITE Mr. Gray explained the .p,roppsal'for the 'Twin Theaters'-to' DESIGN REVIEW: be located in' the: ,Washington Squar - h - opping Center at 219 South McDowell-Blvd. fie stated that the staff had merc - I 'been concerned 'that­ the other '" h - ants lh the 'shopping center mi o n object t t e o ation bf' Tidi � Theaters but letters received from numerous tenants in the shopping center were very indicated 'n' 6 obj to the proposed use. -- ' Sit& ­ Design Mt. Gray advised, tha t the Architectural , -Review Committee - had- tecdmm6rided, deletion. , of Condition of the staff report. Comm. Popp,.a, member ofthe Co iimfit- s, ated that .'the Commissioners hnot' t ee, t I eel - thA.t the,'patking ,s,igqs!, stating. "No.__ theater parking" could actually be enfokc,ed.,and also did ''I were 'a"'' not. ee ey t -' other parking'` ar .ppropria e,. since were available `Comm. Wright` ­ qtidstion if - the '3 -foot high directional signs were"'dc,61ally saft. - Mr; Gray replied that, the area w6.ul(i, v ically`chetke�d out; and suggested, 1 ha ' e * 'to p fiy, s that ect ional- s 'gfis­c`ouid be painted on the parking 4a 6 or on islands. The hours of operation Sur c ,thd Ver11:' . _discuss ` ' .a nd .' a nd I't was - clar ified that there would be ,.e . som6 between ','the , �th I hours of operation -, and t Pf other shops 141, the 'Center. The Commission 0 ­ I . . ­- ' ' * ­6 y �ia ­ that. C it y could not enforce parking T s ' dlSb : informed 'b "t' - hou-Id indicate a desirable park- on private property, u i s , arrAfig''e 'at time., A short-discussion f oll(oriied:'--af ter which Comm'.. 'Wright _ to - approve the site design gubje ct. to. of approval as revised. by the Architectural & Site Design Review' 'Corftmit_t6eVw with the exception that X6nditio 43 be r eworded - . that parking directi i nal painte signs shall'be ' on the�-park ing surface. The 'm:otlon' was seconded by Comm. -Waters AYES' 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 WILLIAM ARMS' STORAGE Mr. L Gra briefly reviewed the pro f ora - mini-war - ehouse BLDG. E Q.- stor tage I., - to - be , located.ori.'Lot #12 of the North San b ui ld ing - - ­ ____ I - I EVALUATION,' & : SITE 'Franci ' -It - idustrIal Park #1 onTrAnsport 'Way. He then DESIGN REVIEW: read the - cond recommeiided by 'the Architecutral & Site . ,Design Review Committee. Mr. ' Gray ,advised the C.dutmi ttiat 'it' was his: -personal feeling that - the prop6 of Sunset Orange. and Frost White indicated #7 were not appro- priate fdt ,a b ' uilding that is visible from the` freeway, since -these co 'h4�.,vety, ' .agai - .against the .landscap stark and would `not ;be. compatible to those in the. area Mr. IPAM j� Petaluma City Planning. Commission. Minutes, - Apri -l) 20,: 1976 .' :Don •Petro `clarif =ed •that the roof of the .building would be gray, and a: discussion f'ollo,wed °with regard to the ac'cep;tabil' ;ty of:` th&, %pro color,s:. Chairman Horciza asked `they =applicant if % the luture buildings proposed = were` to, i!be =the:; same; color.: .�Mr ;: -Petro replied that they iwould: "_b'e the color and indicated their location on the area map.:;: :He. also expr.essed•. :his client's concern that. the buildink. would.app:ear mediocre amidst the tan and�brown':adjacent'build buildings: -Mr., Gray clarified that the proposed building is 170' x 30,', and 10' high with double ;bay' ysentrances.. :: He ,also .state'd that he did not feel.. it! °was_ neces'sar -;y_ f,or• "the, building to attract the ' a'ttention, of clients,, since-_ he . felt that most of the client's > woul'd -.• residentaor;ibusinesses from Petaluma, and .it should therefore present a low, profile in an area . set asidefor industrial development. The applicant : uoiced,:his ;d- isagr;eement.,• 's'tating•: •that transients were attracted to this., type of service it would be a d'efnite..•asset r;if they facilities were easier to find. He `also: stated' he did _not feel that all the buildings in this !area should. be the same• color•. Comm' ,.:P-opp ,.inoved:.to ;direct the Planning - Director to prepare and .posit a•. Negative Declaration for the project. The motion was seconded by Comm Wright. AYE 6 :NOES 0; ABSENT 1 • Comm,. Popp moved to approve,the site design review with condit °ions of approval'as agreed upon by the Architectural & Site''Desgn Review Committee. The motion was seconded _ by •" Comm'...Wa?ters',;. . rAYES.. 6 ,.' NOES - 0 , ;,::ABSENT,. I MILT, FORMAN = .E.J.Q: :Mr. Gray. briefly expla- fined; ;the,. -regpest by Richard Lieb on EVALUATION ° &;.SITE b'ehal -f, of•L.M lt : •for :.a, 4-unit addition to DESIGN REVIEW:. the.Cherry H111 r:esidentlal, located at 180 Cherry : .. Street. He' advised the Commission of the history -:of the dev„elopment --.by stating tha -t 'the existing complex had-:,been :constructed in • 1979- .and, -1n 1972 36 residential units ;had been applied-. ^,for through, the Residential Develop- ment Contr ,System and. subsequently alloyed. At that .; -time .the developer ;gave an.;op;ton..on his proper to the : Camille pro,jject adjacent „and • tr,ansfer of allotments from Mr Forman•to Camille: Enterprises wa.s requested and granted �` "'•: -by,,the City °.Council.;. Camille,;Enterprises went into bank- ruptcy' -:and when •,.the for the entire project were: being• considered :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 l ; Petaluma 'City Planning Commission•Minu':tes, .Apri1; 1976 , <. Mr : Gray explained that _For -man, ,therefore is pro- posing,: to develop only four uni�ts%at, this time out of the total - of, 36 which would ,exempt the project from the, Resident ial .,:Development Control,System. He added .that. the exact, plan.as::.submitted in.19:71 for,-the 36 -unit proj'ec.t was not under consideration, but since only four units were- - being,. .developed- a,t: ' ._time, the conditions were therefore different.Ahan•.what would -, be`-recommended for the e h t! 36- unit:`,development,. .,1r: Gray. advised _.tha.t:...the, - Architectural & Site Design `Review Committee hada reviewed - .the proj.ect,,and concurred with_ the 'staff , recommended conditions of approval.. He �= then read: the'. five conditions as: stated in the s' - toff report, 'Comm: Hill goss.- questioned .how..many additional. trips would be generated 'from this 4- unit.-.development. Mr,. Gray = replded that there 'would be 7 :to -:10 trips. a day per' unit... The access, was briefly: discussed. ° Mr. Gray advised .that it was 'planned. tha-t_Liber;ty - Street would be. constructed thro - .i .igh n the futur-:e, and that further, development of the Fo rman. property would probably have to be `r.estricted until - tha't , materialized. Comm.. Wright moved to- direct the Planning- bir.ector to prepare and ,pos;t' a _Negative'Declarat on for the projec ., The mo>tion.was seconded . by -Comm..Popp. • „ :.AYES 6 .. NOES 0._.. ., ..ABSENT , I Comm.. Bond- expressed .'his concern. that-1-the ,traffic pattern was already inadequate -'for the ..site. without add- irig addit - ional t'raffic'. Mr:. Gray replied -that :the - City _- Engineer had to..aook::.at the project in' relation to what effect:.t, would -have on...the :public street and, not to, - adequacy of the' -< private .st-reet;. _ further • explained: ; that the draginal .approval for_:the 36 units. included:; ;, . . s. providing a, 'second access .'an&_'a.,storm drainage sy's.tem ; but the. City "Eng nee "r, .fel'a that at. this time these. r -equ I iremdrits' were unjlustif for only four units, snce..iiot :too much tr -affie would abe generated.. He = oa clarified fhat'!any further- dev.e'lopment would necessi- :tate'an? add tional-access: and public; improvements. Mr,. ' Forman - stated . - tha by` the time he was .ready. to construct Phases. 3 and, 4• -the property adjacent would probably be „ developed and a: .access.- .ava Comm. Bond " .replied t-hat:..he...' nders:tood,_ the 'pr6b'lem, but still felt - :if ..was :a "= bad- _situatiori. to :add ::more. units to the. private, - drive~ because he =,personally,. did , °not feel i,t,was safe. . -4- j ter Petaluma City Planning Commission-Minu:tes,,�p.,Til�,20., -1976 Comm Wright, moved, tp r .., to., �i t the site.de subject- the cond,itions,,asre6ommended'by-. staff and concurred . r ....with by the Architectural &'8ite Design Review Committee. e6o'n on Comm. Popp s AYE - �6 NOES 0 ABSENT j re Tarr' 'exp r a Use Permit to f YOUNG AMERI k. MORES M r F d lain th6 o A USE 'PERMIT U! V -76: a'llow' danc'e.' studio in tt e r Yiar Planned Unit D evelopment `medical 'and professiorial office complex l �' mm biive. Co' 'Hilligoss questioned if there,Vek'e any ; .other occuparit§ The applicant replied , that. there o upan i4ould e th f s, but the space had not . been rented as ye, t . L The PLublic,. Hearing was opened; 'no comments were o i .thi��_ AUdience An th e Publ ic . ' 'Hearing was closed. , C OHM 'th& Use gllli�g6s's moved-.to_.grant, e Permit; Comm. ­ Wa s, ter sbdbfided the mot-idn. NOES 0, • .. ZONING.ORDINANCE�, #107_2 Mi_' G ray .brierly reviewed the orain'arice changes and why t 'b init 'C ight questioned why een init ate Co mm. "Wright 14-C. S1. E I Q. hF7 had EVALUATION &'PRdPbstb there was no mention 'of landscaping the setbacks in the AMENDMENTS: mobilehome parks. Mr. Gray'tiefe'rfeid him to Section 8 -related -to.-lands cap ing -tha t-wou-1 d I b e , X�equirgd at the time of site design review.. He explained to th`d Commission .t at th6'mobl park ordinan 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. -Hill ­igoss moved to direct the Planning Director to prepare and pos t a Negative Declaration for the - project. ' , The mot-ion'. was seconded -by� Comm. Wright. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1, The Public Hearing to consider the Zoning. Ordinance amend- ments was opened; no*icommentswere offered from the audi-. ence and the Public Hearing was closed. Comm.. Waters moved to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance modifications to City Council. Comm. Popp seconded-the motion. AYES. 6... NOES 0 ABSENT 1 -5- �A: Petaluma City Plann Cominission Minutes; ' April" 20',` 106 p Y •• :�. OTHER BUSINESS:`. The ossibility • of a tour of" completed° site designs • and public f;acilities'`was"dscussed.. Comm. Waters also suggested an open house for a walking tour of the settling ponds Comm. Wr'igl t informed ' ihe Commission he-had an excellent-'seminar a'. the , University- of California on the preservation of historic, buildings and districts, % a .:. ; And. that for. H perhaps "Carol" Galbraith from the ` National Trust ist Preservation oric ', sl otild be invited' 'to'talk °to the. `Commission.: Mr. Gray° replied �. that a 'representative from the Trust had .addressed the Commission when the Historic or" dinance -was . adopted, but '-he also thought -it would be worthwhile to, "ask Ms. Galbraith to give .a . m Comm Waters expresses "conce`rn '.with the City ;Council ^'s reversal of; the Comai'ssion, 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, s1gn' ordinance... Mr. Gray replied . that the staff had recommended to the Chief Administrator that A joint study session° should - be. `'geld 6f'-the Planning Commission and --Ci;ty:..Council to review , -the ­s_ign - violation :. notices; thdt,•have gone-out so far, what .type of ,general Violatons; existed aril which violations were most frequent,` �. and in "that manner get` some d'r,ec'tiori from 'the 'Council on how '.to proceed; ADJOURNMENT, There tieing, no further`'bus ness; the meeting adjourned at 9;' 10 P • m