Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/19/1976A G -E N b'A PETALUMk..0 - OCTOBER 19, 1976 TTY,PLANNINq..CQMMIS�SIO REGULAR MEETING '7:30 P.M' CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA The Plapning a -9 applidants'"or their. to be available at the,meetings.Itb,answer-q,uestions,.so thdt"no.agenda items need be.defe red to a later lack .of.,pertiiient.ihformation.. PLEDGE 'ALLEGIANC2'TO THE 'FLAG ROLL CALL: -Comm.,,,Bond:- ,,Head Harbers6n'. Aorc Popp_ Waters" 'Wright STAFF: Ronald F. Hall, Planning Director' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ..CORRESPONDENCE: TIMMER REALTY OFFICE BUILDING E,. I,.,Q. EVALUAT i ION/VARIANCE V8-7,6­&1 . S ITE DES IGN REVIEW: GOLTERMANN-GLAZIER- HANSEN:j,E EVALU- ATION /SITE DESIGN REVIEW: - .REZONING FROM Ra TO PUD (13` APT) Z13-76: 1. ' Public hearing to evaluate the Environmental Impact Quettionnaire for". a- prb`pased of .building . to be iodated At 420 Petaluma Blvd..No. 2,. Public Hearing to . consider a variance request to -a.,non-conforming_ freestanding sign on the subject,,. site.. 3.- Site'design review of the proposed 'Office-site development. . r 1. Public hearing to evaluate the Environmental Impact Questionnaire of proposed rezoning from R-1-6,500 to PUD '(Planned Unit) District., 2. Public hearing to-'Consid '-t.he.rezoning.application , of. Golterman,n-Glazi:Eir-7-Haiisen.-to.-rezone southeast corner of Eighth and "F"'Streets.from R-1-6,500 to PUD (13 Apt). SANDERS ON ON FORD"MERCURY SALES IINC.-- E.I.Q. EVALUATION/USE PERMIT: 1. Site-design review proposed.apartment complex. .1. .Public hearing-to:*evaluate the,:,EnvironmentaI Impact .Questionnaire for a proposed automobile dealer to be located-at 527 East.-Washington Street. 2. Public hearing.to consider a.Use Permit application - for the proposed automobile dealer. PDQ RESTAURANT ADDITION - E.I,.Q. EVALUATION[SITE DESIGN RENEW CONSIDERATION• 1 . Fublic' hearing to, evaluate..the.Environmental Impact Questionnaire f'or' a' proposed -- restaurant.'"addition. n �i 2. 2. Site Design ,Review 6 'the proposed "res aurant add = tion.located at '310 "D" Street. AMENDMENT" TO '` 'Pubiic hearing' to consider `amending Zoning Ordinance SECTION ',24 -b00 No.�`10Z.2 Ni;C S', "toy' all' ow "tthe - - , miriistrator OF ZONING • ORDINANCE: '' grant I' ot` coverage':varian'ces. ` ABLE PLUMBING '*" &, 1`. ' 'Public `hearing-:to 'evaluate -"the 'Environmental Impact HEATING.. CQ :- 'E.I..Q=: '- Que. t onna r,e' 'for a proposed plumbing =;and heating EVALUATION /STTE wholesale and.storage building to. 'be located at DESlGN" REVIEW ` ' 979• Transport Way,, CONSIDERATIONS,: 2. Site - Design Reyiew.of proposed industrial development. SON011A COUNTY Hearing to` evaluate the Sonoma Airport Master Plan AIRPORT MASTER 197545; - Draf:t E:'I ".R. PLAN 1975 -95 DRAFT E'; I . R. OLD'BUSINESS :Committee Representatives.. ADJOURNMENT k1I U,T..'E,S pv G' ALUMA'CITY' PLANNIN WAR MEETING-J. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS; CITY HALL. PRESENT: Comm . Bed Head,.Hbtciza*, Popp*, Waters,. *(Arrived 7 p.m. Wright :3 5 )-:-,. ABSENT: Comm. Harberson OCTOBER 19, 1976 7.:30. P., M. PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA STAFF: RonaldIF...Hall,.Planning .s APPROVAL OF,MINUiES: .. The minutes-of October 1976.were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE: Mr. ex p lained.-a letter and resolution . had been received from the Old,Adobe Union $chool -Dis . trict.requesting'Naria Drive be ex- tended to include sidewalks with any new developments north of the present:.termination-of.Maria.Drive. He stated Qantas Development Corp. w.ill.ektend,.a,portion.pf Mar Prkvp when the Park Lane Sub- divisi.Qn-is completely developed. TIMMER REALTY OFFICE- Mr.. Hall ,explained -the request. by. Richard Burke, representing BUILDING ..Timmer -Realty.., to clarify Section, 137-205,' the Zoning Ordinance ,EVALUATION [VARIANCE/ to; allow-. f or a: f reestanding . sign in J ron,t, of., the proposed # SITE -DESIGN' Timmer Realty. Office I Building uilding t I o b . e iocated at 420 Petaluma Blvd. EW: N;.. , The -is,. accessible. via , Petalum, a.. B - lvd.. N. and from the adjoining t to all exitin''g will leave by way of an access, easement on the neighboring parcel. r The public hea was opened to consider the Environmental Impact Questionnaire'— Mr. Jon Ghi-r-i . nghell 4 Petaluma B lvd, - N., owner of the pro- perty,- stated .1-t-, •-is important f ora thi's,type of business to have a f reestanding,_ sigp' o for.peoplp coming . f rom out-of-town to locate he property. p . dly visible f or.- bot 'The-freestanding.sign would make the busi- , t ness:more,re h'north,and.southbound traffic. ..i Comm. Bond explained that variances were granted to peculiar or unusual conditions -sufficient:to. I cause-a hardship. Mr. Ghiringhelli 'Iding to,professional stated he.intended, to rent. a,portion of t4e.bui type ..businessps, ,4aiAely accounting .,and architectural firms,. -The sign . would - read "Timmer Realty Building" and the names of Pother f irms in, t - Id.be,in-ciuded on the sign. He _ the complex. Wou requested.he,,b' ,allowed to - start . construction of the building and .to.erect.the•,freeslt-- and if at a later date the sign is -be non-conformi ng,with-the Zoning 0 f ' und to.,.. 9 Ordinance, the sign would be I removed.i-,', :Mr,.-!Hall tliat,$ection 13-,205 o,f,:the Ordinance Q pertains principl e uses s in.�Highway Commercial zoning e districts -to only .real -estate and insurance offices. -OthLr°profe,gsion-al.office.'s are.more appropriately permitted in other districts that I provide for a,bptter'environment. Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, October'=19, "'1976 Yom 'The . - - public• hearing. was 'closed. Comm.. Horciza moved to direct" the Planning Director to prepare and post a Negative Declaration for the project. The motion was, seconded by Comm.. 'Popp`. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 The public : - hearing ,- relating to the Variance.request�,was opened. A dis cuss ion :followed regarding•the request for the use of a non- conforming freestanding sign to-: be- located on'Petaluma- Blvd. N. in fx- ont..of -the property. _site.. Comm,.. Horciza. stated this type of business would.,generate les.s' ingress and egress traffic to Petaluma Blvd. 'N:. "than 'prdseiit' businesses" Io.6ated - in the area. * Laiids`daping would- be used in lieu. of park=ing, space. 41 and ,exiting from the property would be 'provided by 'an access easement on the .neighbor- frig carwash:'property:- He°added•there-should :be.no sight distance p'roblems"for cars leaving'or entering the property Mr. Head': giiestibned -, all' four - subse,ctioi :s ' (30,3:1 thru - 303.4) under Section. 26.`3.03 of -the Zoning :Ordinance were required to be met before a variance :_could be permi=tted'. Comm.- Bond stated the City -Council. had ;appointed A. study..gr;oup under the direction of the Chamber of Commerce t o study - the.new sign ordinance Comm.`Head requested the matter be:• referred tor. the` City 'Council .for: decision. Comm. B`an'd 'state'd the 6 P- lanning�- Commission 'wbuld have to make a ddterminat`ion and - r`ec'ommendation to the City Council oh. 'the. mat=ter. Mr. Stan Maggiora, owner of -the 1R din t -ree Car "Wasl , ,located ad- �' the' proposed' property; stated -that. if the applicant is not allowed to have the ; f- ree - standing's :i cars travelling from the'south:'.on Petaluma. Blvd. into Petaluma would not be able to view - the p ro p osed�: i e - d this `would'. cause' >a hardship on his site' an business:. Comm. ,'Bond :commented that°iI the proposed building was set back.20- feet, a'var.iance would not-have be requested and the -building` could be signed wit'hoiit any problem. Mr . Maggora stated if tli s.wdre done the' applicai t would then lose needed : parking °'spaces`. ' Mr,. Maggora asked if' the'• - building 'was set back could' - parking; be p,roVfded` in ahe`•f.Tont of` 'he building.. Comm. Bond stated` a' .sign' could. be - �p.ermktted' under these conditions. Mr: `Hall informed. the 'Commission that •`adjaacent building to the north was locAted - directly on 'the : •front property line so there is some ;visual impairment ='`for ,s'outhbound motor- ists.. Mr.,. Fred Schram, -Manager of -,the "Petaluma Chamber 'of Commerce, explained the Chamber'° is foster ng'- a•�committee. to provide input into the.: new sign. or.dinanee''and' d "'cis "ion'made would have. a 'bearing on. , the ;•applicant's proposal. �W,ithin the next three months a .new sign, ordinance will be adopted: 'but presently the appli=cant ia'hampered•.by , the decision Hof' the Cot is,s %on. He .added it would be apropos • for the Commissi=on to ;make' a, faq "orable decision in this case Comm. Bond` .'the- Commission. is bound to abide by the Zoning Ordinance. Mr._Sch- ram•'stated' that one more free- stan'ding`sign�that•is well oned•should be allowed under -2- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minute's; October-'19,.1976 •' these: circumstances ;:jand . requested.- the:Commission to consider this request favorably,' ' Comm: •�$ond­.state'd. the ^•.applicant has not shown - evidence of' - peculiar "'and-'unusual= condition,inherent to the subjeet- ;property sufficient to cause• a hardship and therefore I granted variance: The public hearing was closed. Comm. Bond:stated the variance°'doesInot�::meet the criteria of the Zoning Ordinaiice''and- therefore' the. ordinance, should be upheld. The varance'shoul,'d be ' dehied and the request left to the dis - cretiori.of the City .Council: Comm.;.Hor-ciza stated there is no valid re a "son =why the variance should b-6, granted as it does not meet the criteria of Zoning. Ordinance.., Comm. Head stated when a business could not. advertise 'begause of- a-.precedent set by the City Code.or.a.C ordinance-, a hardship should be considered and under the circumstanc'es'...the Commission �should.consider this appli- cation. for a Use Permit. Comm. Popp stated the variance request does not meet the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance and considera- tion�to.the var ance­request has.been.given on -the facts as presented' Comm. •Bond>moved_that.'the variance-be denied as,it did not conform to Section 26 -303 of Zoning Ordinance. Comm. Popp seconded the motion. AYES 5. w NOES . -1 ABSENT 1 GOLTERMANN-GLAZIIER- HANSEN E.I.Q. EVALU- ATION / DESIGN REVIEW OF REZONING FROM R- 1- 6,500 - :TO - (13 APT)Z131 76: " _ I r Comm. Head: stated :his'- reason = for. a ,. gative vote was the applicant had met some of-the conditiona of:: Section ,267303 of the Zoning Ordinance Vut; the 'ordinan'ce . did not - specify that all four subsec- tions of Section 2,6 -303 were to be n►et before a variance request could -be approved..' The: conditions oL approval.for•:the site design as recommended by the Architectural and Site Design Review Committee were read. Comm. Waters moved approval of the site design with conditions of appf6val`�as recommended °'.by the; staff and concurred with by the Architectural 'and':S'it6 - Design• Review. Committee. The motion was secorided'by Comm. Horciza: AYES 6 NOES 01 ABSENT 1 Mr. - Hall explained the. 'subject property was_located. on the south- east-corner.of Eighth Streets and a request-had been made by ''Goltermann= Glazier:-Hansen.to rezone: the property from R =1- 6;500-,' single= faiiiily, to" PUD Planned. Unit. 'District. , The property would ".:b'e deveYoped with °13 •residential units 11 studio apartments . and 2 one- bedroom'.;.apartments and would be occupied by persons.- -55 year$" off age or­olderi: . He added- the Petaluma Boys' .. Club is':- located to and McNear Park .is located to the south'of' "the proposed - site. Mr. Hall informed -the Commission that -3- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes', ,October .,1:9, -, ..19:76 . the City. Councrl had "determined that; the overall residential • density the. block. hounded, by Eighth Street ,. "`F" Street, "G" ' Street -and tEleventh. Street -would, : be two. units Pe_r acre if this proposed., development were i con's - ructed and the develop- ment would conform to the General...Pla,.n and' the Environmental Design Plan. Mr. Hail- .added: that a t- raffic report had been requested due, to the projected.additional.daily vehicular trips the project would �gei erate as' compared.. with- =the sing) e- family ,zoning which now exists =for'the ar:ea.• The 't.raffic.- :assessment indicated that no adverse_:traff'ic e-ffects. can; ,expected as a• of the pro - posed p.roj:ect,, - .and' - the increase i�n.traffic assoc : aged with, the apartment- complex ?will *not , change . o'r. constitute °an obstacle to the • anticipated,txaffic':volumes._% .., The - public- hearing.:relating- tb the-Environmental Impact Question - naire was -':Don Turner, :.a res dent;, of the area,,. asked what• effects this pro- jec would.have on the valuation of the, surrounding properties in the area. 'Comm. Waters stated this type of project would enhance the area. Mr. Hall explained that s,ince,this;s undeveloped land, this development would, be::more<attractive and have less impact on the area. than. za us'e similar to the Boys". Club ',facility. It wou'l'd be an attractive'p.ro�ect and a good alternative use for the site. • Mr. Hall°. added he could •not; foresee any .signifi'c`ant increase in the present. tax st- ructure'• for 'exis'ting residences with this type. of =development:,because.the neighborhood 1s .fully deve =loped. Comm. ••Hdad •st;ated. the' °proposed project would ;make, the area more desirable anal shou =ld -not: raise :the. °areas • property. -taxes . . The public': hearing; was closed.. Comm." Horc za made a motion to d rect:;the Plannin-g"Birector to prepare and. post . a Negative Decla- ration f:or the, project. The motion was seconded by Comm. Popp. AYES 6 NOES '0 ABSENT;. 1 The rezoningappliicat- on by Go;ltermann- Glazier- Hansen to rzone"'a 29•,00O ' 9 s- ft,• site. located on the,s`outheast corner of .e Eighth: and "F" .' ;from an R_ -1 ,;500 to PUD ;District to _,6- cons truct' 13 residential, units, was discussed. _ The ub,lic hearin was o ened to consider the ro osed Planned P from Unit District. rezoning.z No comments' were offered the and i _ ence matd the''pub,lic,•1earing: was tlos:ed.. • ''.- = "Comm. `Head >,.moved >to. Wrecommer d,.ap;proval of ; the. requested Up re- "'. zoning;= to; 'the •City; Council- 'wth_the specific 4ndings..as stated in. Exhibit' ".'B" •. ' The' , motiorif wasr ,s'e_conded- by Comm. Waters.. l AYES:: .6 NOES' 0'" ABSENT, 1. _. -4- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes :October :19, .197,6 . The '17 ,conditions of the staff report - .relating to the Planned Unit Development',: -were :discussed: .•Comm: Horpiza,,stated he was happy to r see a,,:development of this nature come to Petaluma. Comm. Bond questioned how, the developer-; arrived at., the 55 'year age level. �'•. a Mt.­Lieb stated -the developer.had; checked into other senior citizens,:proj,ects ;;'the units would be small with low maintenance and are'depigned-.for older couples. He added the development : would.:not be a,l_ow�:cost.,construction project nor' it have low I inc'ome; Comm. Horciza moved. to,_approve.the site design for the i Planned Unit Development with 14 conditions of approval as recommended' by :the• staff': and concurred ;with „by the Architectural and .Site:,Design °Review Committee,,' with the following changes: Delete 6, 7 and 14.. Change 45 to. read:: - The , exteri stucco walls of the buildings l' shall be.,painted'> a light color..,, The motion was seconded by Comm.,. Head. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 . SANDERS ON FORD' I1 CURY SALES, fINC: .Q. EVALUATION/ USE PERMIT: Mr: Hall explained the.request_ by Sanderson representing Sanderson - F.or'd= Mercury` Sales, consider a,.proposed retail auto gal'e's' and :new car facitlity to_ be located at .527 East Washington Street'. ., He':. further explained the s -.had previously been used as an°automobile•_dealer facility by "Vea1le,.V.olkswagpn and as a retail tire comp:any.by Downey�Tire Center: The p.ub °lic:'Yiearng was .opened to ,consider the Environmental Impact Questionnaire.:':. -Barry Parkinson, attorney. repre.senting, Roger •Sanderson, stated the site had:been the,,previous location of Veale Volkswagen whose business' was °au'tomo.bile ;car; sales- and repairs. The' property has a good - circulation pattero,for, customer sales and cars and he did not foresee any traffic problem created by the project on East Washington Street Fred Schram stated that with! future,widening , of East Washing - ton the _Ptoposed -.project not^ create °,any traffic problems. -He' added °..•the.. Chamber-;.was• no;tl: ip; o£ - having empty lots and "'buildings in.,the% City - and = a Negative Declaration for the project sh6uld posted .'as - it would,. be. advantageous to the site. The public hearing was c- los,ed. Comm. Popp moved,. because: , of discussion that.determined the pro - posal"not:ao.be. p,roj,ect, to "rescind' the previous motion made by Comm: Head; that -a Negative Declaration be prepared and posted for the project: The - motion, was." seconded by Comm. Head. AYES 0 ; ABSENT. 1 -5- J' Petaluma City Planning Minutes, October, 1976 'Use. The public..h'earing ,, , was opened to. consider-the Permit.. Roger Sanderson explained that- with the.; development­ �of' the Great Peta- 'luma Mill their,p:arking lot 'wi now-be. used- by the Petaluma Mill cliental.-and. in: order to;.mantain #their present ;operation, it is necessary toy relocate` their ,retail' :c'ar to another location. Comm. .Bond: state& that.- as . -,a °;matter of policy a ; preliminary traffic study -' should be required f' -any future,.development on East Wash- ington. Street. Comm:. Head remarked' a :traffic 'report had been. submitted f "s, .restaurant':. arid, this. report should suffice for: the: proposed project. - Comm. :Bond add'ed the traffic. analysis for- .,a car- sales-,lot and a' restaurant would be different. Comm. Popp_ stated the use proposed' fo,r ths:_pr:operty `would not generate.as.:much traffic ,as compared with t-h.reeL single -. .family residential - , =' and the existing Roger. .'Wilco Shopping Center g g PP- g and pro.posed::Wendy's Restaurant would create more traffic than the proposed used car lot.. Comm.. Wright stated, that if the property could not' be as retail -: car -. 16t, p.erh °aps° .another fast .food type, restaurant would - the site. Mx.... John Downey, owner :of the .roperty:, stated . he -purchased the prroperty. from Veale Volkswagen; , an.d the use of the- property by Downey.. Tire: tenter, had:. `been' the "same :continued use as 'Vea'le Volks -, d' en.:: ,pxoject would have a less intensive us :e than its predecessors and -would n'ov.have a impact ­on East Washington '�Street: °Mrs. Rarknson; attorney; stated •the project would -not "a.' nuisance and would,. -be m in conformance wi the Zoning Ordinance .,than - A. I acre shopping center, and would be an improvement to the property,. He added the s "te would be`used gas - it •had: been. in - -the past­ and would not ; .,generate traffic as would a ,shopping .centeer.. He asked, the Commission ` to -consider the fact that this::property -had :been used not, too long as a similar- type `operation:,.' . -He ?added that as ea practical matter:, this project g.. p p y; Nand , there`fore the Commission would -be ,a , good use - ro ert should` approve the cond=itional use p:ermit,. The public hearing relating tw the - ,, Use `Permit 'was.; closed Comm. Bond,: requested' that the 'definition of. Section 25 -201., be explained:: Mr: Hall: stated a non-conform .use•.s, one which was origina-lly - legal., , but which -does -not ..presently conform to the provisions -of the'district in which it is- situated, Any previously existing use. fof: wh cli• district ;regulations now required a Use Pe`rmi;t'. shall °be deemed to °: non - conforming until such a permit is secured. He:'explained that •when,, the ,property was, occupied by Veale :Vol<kswagen:.and Downey.Tsre- Sa'1es, this type of ,service_ was not allowable -under the C =N, Neighborhood Commerrcial, District ...zoning- ordl:nancee. Th conditional'. uses in'=a •C -N District are auto ' service;: sta'tioris,; :social halls ,:' .lodges , l;gior sales or otter =' acholic beverages: 'and, stropping:: centers with, a maximum area of 3- aCreS;:,:1 businesse`s which are =for the predominant use of • residents, of .the. neighborhood.. He added that the proposed, car sales use is, not' an •alhowab'le conditional ,use and the application was accepted because, of previous uses of the, property. -6- Petaluma City Planning I' h I i i PDQ RESTAURANT ADDITION -E. I. Q,F EVALUATION /SITE, DESIGN REVIEW CONSIDERATION:'. I� Commission Minutes, - October 19, 1976 Comm. Horciz,a- suggested that this area should be rezoned due to the characterist cs'of Eas't`Wash ngton Street such as drive -iii restaurants, shopping centers, the public library and swim center whicfi'generate "and 'attract traffic to the area and should.be.placed in a'C- H, Commercial District. Comm. Popp,explained the property. ad previously been used for car repair -`and operations and�as Sanderson Motors had given up some of their .'present property to 'the'Petaluma Mill, the existing proposal should•..,.be.considered'. Comm. Waters s "tated.that to allow the used car sales.lot,.the Use would not be in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr.',Parkinson stated.Sanderson retail "sales lot could be con- sidered,.as,a nonconforming "use" s the use was similar to that of the previous , two o'ccupants'. ke `cofisidered .the Downey Tire Center to be..a nonconforming use and'•the proposed' business would be one of,a less intensive and a more restrictive nature and therefore would be..;applicable for the Commission 't6 -giant the Use Permit. Mr. Hall asked the applicant if he had been discouraged by the Planning.staff when. he applied f'o"r a Use Permit. Mr. Sanderson stated the staff had not pointed out that this use was not per - ..mitted,., Mr stated the best approach then would be for the Commission. to .not. allow 'the' Use Permit as' it would not be per - mitted:under:'Section.11= 400'of the.,C -N, Neighborhood Commercial, District ' Since the'Sanderson Ford''retail sales lot was a use -less intensive than Downey Tire Sales, "a Use Permit would not be required, but the Iindings.'of Section 25 -402 would have to be made ,The.Com'mission made the finding °under Section 25 -402 that the pr.opos.ed use is of the',s`ame• or of a more restricted nature than uses and therefore approved the continuation of a nonconforming use. Comm.: P'opp;: moved` to rescind..a prev oi.is motion made by Comm. Head to grant a. Use P'ermit'to allow' for a ''retail auto sales and new car facility. The '.resc nd'ed motion was seconded by Comm. Waters. :.AYES. 6 NOES' 0 ABSENT 1 Mr. Hall suggested an analysis -of. the 'C N.Neighb Commercial, District, relating 't6 restaurants, Ve proposed by the staff and:the findings b,e brought back to the Commission. The Commission so directed - the :staff to prepare the analysis. Mr: Ha1'1 explained the request of Bi11 Magoulas for a proposed addition to, the-. PDQ Drive -In, Restaurant• located; at 'the northeast corner:. of Fourth ' an "D" Streets. Mr. Hall added there would be'a 276 square foot;, dining room added :t'o` the existing building. The public hearifig'to consider the Environmental Impact Question - , naire� was opened..,' were offered from audience and the Pub lic :.Hearing was.. closed:. -7- t Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes; - October '19, - 10x6 1 ,,• Mn, Hall .s,t.ated; with the dining room addition the exposed walk -up window would be. eliminated:, -'and - the , proposed addition should be an improvement to the:'present to - Comm Waters "moved to direct the .Planning 'D rector to prepare and post 'a Negative 'D'eclaration for the •p.ro3 ect:: ` The imot ion was seconded by, Comm. 'Head.._ AYE'S 6 NOES 0` - ABSENT • • 1 Mr: Horciza "advised that the Architectural and Site Design Review Committee had reviewed the proj:ec and discussed the 11 conditions of approval of the Site Design ' The Committee re'commend'ed Con- 1. dition: #1•be changed to read - . a' • 'solid redwood fence in lieu of a masonry wall; Condition #2' be changed' to read: landscaping shall range .in height from 30` inches to 26 'inches; "and Condition #3 be . to read .redwood � f'enc'e in lieu of masonry wall. Comm • itove,d to :approve the site design for_ al e. proposed dining..room.addition to the PDQ Drive- in•R'estaurant as recommended by the.. staff and concurred''with by' th'e Architectural and Site. Design, Review Committee, with "the f:ollowing Changesi condition- 41 to read,: A solid redwood' fence not less than 36: inches or - more- than inches in 'height, shall be c'ons'tructed along the north, and west proper.y' lines as indicated on Exhibit "A" A. border- barricade (or /stop) consisting of .a suitable eon- - crete,_;;asphalt, timber' or oilier approved •b:arrie_r, -not less than two (2) ; feet from' the line .shall be 'p for all six parking spaces. `:.Change:_,condtion-- ��2 to- read;: .,Landscaping :shall A be provided and maintained'along "D" Street, as'indicated.in Exh <bit "A" to pr of .the parking lot fxom.the street. Landscaping shall range in 'height from 30' `inches to ' 26 inches.• Change #2- - to read; The .required' reAw,00d.•.fence and.land- scapin g,shall not. located closer to the:frontiiig curb than the distance measured. between the curb and • the : -:end of -the sidewalk on The ; motion "wa :ad3 lots;. s seconded 'by' Comm,.. Head. .. .,AYE$ . 6 .... , � • .NOES ' ABSENT : 1. ABLE•PLUMBING & Mr: Hall explained the request by, Bill Mondino• to allow for the HEATING CQ -E I..Q.. r construction• of a, proposed, wholesale and. storage building to be EVALUATION /SITE% located at 919 Transport'Way,,cnear Dynamic "Street. The site has DESIGN REVIEW' :.;:. 70 feet, of: frontage' on. Trarisp:ort 'Way ',and ari area of approximately. CONSIDERATION' 19 feet. Access'�o:,the ; site''wodld , be via an 1'8 -foot :driveway -leading off of Transport 'Way.. The public hearing to!•consider `-the .Environmental Impact Question - naire' was. opened:.: No. commentsf offered •from, the audience and the public hearing was, closed 8- .M Petaluma City Planning- Commission Minutes:;•; October 19; 4 .Comm-..---Popp moved ,,to direct. the Planning. Director to prepare and j.: p.ost.,a.Negatve Declaration ,for The motion was seconded::by. Comm, - Horciza. .AYES, 6;:5., NOES;',. 0 `. ABSENT. 1 Comm. Water-s,moued to, approye the. design for the wholesale and. st.o.rage.<bui.lding •with the, five conditions of approval as re. commended- b.y- the:Architecutral and Site Design Review Committee. The, motion _ °'was seconded. - by,rCgmm. Popp.. AYES 6. NOES 0 ABSENT 1 Comm. Bond-:moved:-that the meeting beextended beyond 10:30 p.m. . -The - motion - was - seconded by, Comm.. Hore.iza..,. AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT 1 SONOMA.COUNTY. -I. Comm. Wright,explained the Cbmmissi6n was to comment on the Draft AIRPORT MASTER „: Environmental Zmpact':relat,ng to'.the. -new -Sonoma County Airport PLAN °197:5 - -9.5 Master_P••lan. (1975795). their recommendation be made• to. the City DRAFT. E.I.,R w Council.'. . Mr:: Fred .Schram: expressed concern that, the E.I.R. the Pe.taluma..Sky.Ranch Airport be'..non- existent in the future. The Petaluma ,airport, he' stated., ..should 'b.e .continued as it exists .for.use.by._lght - .aircraft - and .further.tha:t the community has the right have this: type of : airpor,t facility. - Mr..Runyon, Petaluma. Airport t Manager, • belie„ved the Petaluma air- port p.r.ov.ded, a`� satisfactory service to industry and to the needs l,. of” the .,p.ub:lic. , '..The exist ng.ai_rport also .serves the community as a .taxi aervice to airports. Comm. Horc za- stated the. E'.I.R..des gn calls for a diversion channel; along the northern; bounda_ ry of. the, proposed airport site ~. to: d•is`charge;. to: Arroyo. Seco as a replacement ,for the intermittent watercourse to. which now flows south through the proposed development; but the potential of flooding was not.inentioned. The report existing access roads and how the proposed de- . velopmen.t _ prog.ram: will . accommodate the 20 -,year _increase , and there is some discussion on the impact on roads in the vicinity of 'Sonoma. ;but;`, no. mention of• the impact' on,,other roads in the area, ,namely:,Stage.Gulch and' what impact..200 vehicular -trips would cfeate by the p=roposed airport; Comm. Wright stated- the•E. I: R. mentions Petaluma does not want an airport This. - not a true statement as Petaluma is desirous of. j having:an.airp'ort These statements are incorrect and -were taken I• from a - 1962 draft plan.' Petaluma Planning Commission Minute's, ' October.' 19 197.6 Mr. Hall explained' that` it was tii 's "understanding that Petaluma did • not' want ki' ext`ensi.ve °airport .facility and this ,could have been misconstrued at the time mean' Pet aluma• want an airport. Mr: Runyon ztated as needs'- arise, there . are• glans in ".the- future for development'of °the.Petaluma airport. The present site is a good location for an airport , as' -it: is -located close to. town. He stated he is opposed to any Sonoma - County airport proposal. Comm. Wright staited `P-et'aluma did ;not want` a large airport whether it-be privately owned or county owned. Comm. Ropp,. moved: that,,comments from the ,Planning. Commission re- garding.the_E.I:-R, evaluation -for a new Sonoma County Airport be f;orwa,'rd'ed and a recommenflat'on be made to •they C'ty Council that the Pef?aluma Sky' -Ranch be maintained` as an . irport facility. The motion was seconded " -by Comm.. Horciza. AYES 6 NOES AG ABSENT 1 AMENDMENT TO ': ' Mr.` Hall explained the req'u'est to revise 'S'ectioii 24-- ; 6;00`:of 'the . SECTION .2'4'- ,6,0,0.,.OF : di.riance No. 1:072 N, C. S', whereb the�'.Zon,n Administrator , _ : Zoninga ,;,0r ' .• y g r. .: ZONING ORDINANCE:" (P:lanning Direct -or) may grant lot coverage variances in accordance with the provisions of Section 26-300. He added the proposed amendment is:.dir'ected mainly toward the "downtown shopping'area where :most 'of the existing .lots currently =Nave 100% coverage_,and where. there' °exists • a varkir g as §e'ssment , �dis,trict, which eliminates "the' off': - street. parking requ ref ents . ' He!. further explained that in some 'areas .:of the' City'; especially ,, im the .downtown 'area, the lost coverage.requirements'•may be extreme and., in order. to facilitate additional 'lot coverage'th s is requested. After a.br of discus'sioii`Comm. Head moved "to're to revise. Section '24 =6`00 of Zoning ' Ordinance• No.. 107 -2 N. C. S. to the City. Council and the revision should read'* The ;Zoning Adminis- trator ..:(Planning:. ".Dir.ec:tor) may grant lot ' variances. in excess, ;;,Qf •the:maximum'Jot� "coverage °allowed;, in, accordance with the provisions of $`ection'' 26 -30'0: The motion,-was teconded by Comm-. Popp AYES.:.' S : NOES l ABSENT:. 1 ADJOURNMENT -; There ,b,eing no furthe,r.;b.us Lness L the ,meeting j'qurned at 11:00 Chairman Attest: --� -TO-