Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/18/197716 M IN U T E S PETALUMA,4CITY.,PLANNING...COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 1977 REGULAR MEETING .',..7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL PHM BERS, CITY .HALL ._ ...,, PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT: f Comm. Harberso ..Po p p,,, Waters,: Wright 4 ABSENT: Comm. Bond, Head, Horciza STAFF: Ronald F. Hall, Planning Director i P J APPRE)VAL MINUTES: None.. EAST WASHINGTON STREET- -The design and. location ,of,,the prQposed widening of East VJIDENiNG/:F.A_U. Oington.' 1 Wd S,treetyas,removedrom the agenda as no PROJECT /N request had .been- .received ,that .a, public hearing be held DECLARATION CLEARANCE:.. _to discuss, the, ,prod ecti... RICHARD, WILLIAMS: FOR -Com Wtr.m.ye ­­ m " . . . � a r e , od the . proposed, 5hopping Center to be p .. - - the ­� , ­ THE MAHONEY CO., INC. . . I located - at BaywoQd, - ,Driy�, : dnd. -Perry,.Lane be. removed f rom E. EVALUATION/ .. the.. agend and re-f,chedu-led f or Februati 1, 1977, as USE PERMIT U18-76/ the avpllcant needed- additional time to prepare a SITE REVIEW: traf f1c - study., -,-The motion_was ..seconded by Comm. Popp. (Continued). AYES 4 NOES ; ABSENT­ .3 S IGN. -ORDINANCE: • M r Hall Hall .,stated.-the _Pmmissioln..was>to review the pro- p.6sed ..Chamb!E�r of- :Commerce Sign, Ordinance f or recoimnen- dation to the City Council. ,There would notbe any offic-ial-action taken at this meeting, but a comparison ,.-wouid.be. made :between the existing: sign ordinance, the C of,. Novato. Ordinance and-the ordinance proposed by . ty-: , the of!Commerce.. 'There were - f our major areas 1. ytiere Chamber C ommerde from the exist- ing n section, of the -Zoning,Ordinance; these four staff. report, dated changes are lained in..th& anuary, ll;i- 1971. . sign He. explained the ordinance ..,� s fiery ery s imil,ar t&­.the !, City of Novato Sign -- Ordinance.,. The existing free signs only where buildingis d ''set back at least 30 feet street -i from. th.6 e t on.wh ch,)t e, fronts and the height; is limited, to 30 feet' shopping centers and ! _ I . --_ . 44. k I -1 ' t he .. - - 20-feet" or the height , of, -the. main..building, ..whichever is lower for uses not in shop,ping.-centers. It was felt Zi by.the'staff that�thd proposed sign,i'ordinance should.be --- - - 1 ow �for, - hange4�mtq.,.a I low profile free- standing signs t Tiot, exceed 5., feet in' square feet in area on. sites where the ,,-,bulldin is set back less than 30 feet from the street. Mr. Hall asked the Commission - address:Xhe nonconformin�g,sigijssue in ...which the � requires :that.. all,-nonconforming signs be Petaluma City Planning;.Commission Minutes, January,18, 1977 discontinued byApril 1, 1977, and added- the proposed i ordinance-has no pr.ovison.for =-an amortization calling for the discontinuance of� all nonconforming signs.. He._recommended that. -all illegal .signs as dis- tinguished 'from nonconforming signs be removed by ordinance provision. "Comm. Harberson stated the section• - describing noncon- forming signs should 'be stated in simple ::terms. _;so ..that if there is a ehange;in ownership of'a business.or a change.in.,use, a.nonconforming sign would.be brought - into conformance with the sign ordinance. Mr. Hall.explained that in;every sign..o.rdinance..there is purpose "that should be set forth. He stated that safety .is° a valid consideration as far as signs are concerned.., He sugg4s_ted that holiday light's as addressed 'in the original ordzn4nce.be excluded as -he did not know of any' ts.that were asked for during the holiday season. He some other items as proposed in the. Committee's-ordinance be eli.mi- nated as unnecessary. Mr-r - - Hall stated in - some cities and counties„ ordinances treat•each zoning district independently regarding the regulations :of signs and if this procedure is adopted, the ordinance be easier to administer, since the • district provisions would be separated,.from.,the main section of the sign ordinance. Each district would • have a'provision for signs, namely; agricultural districts, Commercial /industrial Districts, 'residential,, and PUD. Mr.. Hall stated the sign committee proposed' that in the event shopping center- has frontages on or more public'streets additional free- standing signs are permitted .on the additional frontage; only one.sign is allowable .each frontage and the aggregate area of the free- standing signs would be the total allowable to the center. Additional free- standing signs shall..not exceed 25 square feet nor a height to exceed'15"feet. He asked the commission to determine if this'provi'sion would - create a problem Mr. Hall.stated the ordinance: treats flags and - pennants alike perhaps there 'should -be a change in the language and-the staff could deterininewhich would -be.t.he better statement. Mr. ',Hall suggested the: defini:t- on of glare .and ._indirect glare °under Sections_ 22- 304_.1 `and .2 ,should continue to be separated from the.sign,- ordinance. Comm. :Harberson,stated political campaign -signs should not-be--prohibited in , front yards, but said signs "should -2- Petaluma Cty•.Plannng.Commission Minutes, January,18,'1977 be removed after an election as they then-could-be - considered litter _Mr.' Hall stated court- decisions have been studied - in• Redwood° City'whereby.prohibition -of political signs'was considered unconstitutional in - . , certain cases Fred Schram,.Chamber of Commerce, complimented.the staff on their compar`son of- the Novato Ordinance and the Petaluma Ordinance. He stated.the committee had worked for. about-_ four months '.to ' come up with a draft ..report . 'The committee had: to find a document that would be•workable the community. The existing document had so not live with Lt, so .we .selected° as a. °.the Novato Ordi- nance. The. .document we have now is a document we can - work with: He suggested a bi= annual inspection of signs be made by.the Buildifig�Department. We need specifies that can be p`r.e ed. to an applicant with a new business; a document he will be able to read. Mark Barber, member of the committees. s.:tated....befo.re.a free-standing-.sign is allowed on a 30 -foot .setback, a building would-have to be set back about 50 feet from ' the street. He would like have sign ordinance I simple- so could understand it, and not a whole book. He_stated a sign should have good readable lettering,, and glare should not be-permitted. Bill Jonas:, member of the,committee, stated we should have an-ordinance-to allow for large signs and for signs that are illegal' ; an ordinance that is _ . good'for ,P.etaluma and the citizens .of Petaluma. The 'committee talked with several business people in town on the type of signs they would consider. It was the consensus to remove all signs that posed a safety' hazard,, and.non- conforming signs remain until a busi ness changes' hands.or a new sign is proposed. Mr. Jonas thanked .the.staff for all their help. Chairman Wright thanked= the'sign committee.for their input on the sign Mr. .Schram stated the`Project Area Committee-submitted an addendum 'to .the..sign .ordinance for the purpose of having a separate signing code f'or_the Downtown.Core 'Area that this areahas characteristics and a cluster"of- , small shops unlike the larger commercial and industrial areas;. Mr. Hall reviewed the proposal by - the Projecf Area Committee. Comm. Harberson suggested free - standing signs should be permitted.as they are an adddd' asset to.the businessman. He ,would like to see - a-..more simpl =ified .f,orm of abatement procedures' ;.the abatement procedures of the City of -3- Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes, January 18, 1977 Novato would ,,.t#kewab�q i d qRs erablewamount of staff -time. fo s qqld b a s-.'.gAa �.h l e..,removed when, _L60- z-Noncon -, ownership 'changes, and signs put up without a permit shou-1d Signs should be in conformance with the Another date should. be conside j Qf A-Ap.ril 1, 1577', for the .. .,. of; nonconformi ­ _ng , ..,qj_.gns. :Waters an ordinance be dta.f ted depict ipg _the b,esjt _.pqjtion °.the into ,one, composite .j . ordinance stated :.the -draft ,,,,,.ordina:nce,�. discuss e4 y. Co mmission mission and, .bao 0 V o b! r, %d wO r _ Comm Wright tgd-that ini . , standing, signs some-amstqnce�s, low free- gn s m y e p to signs erected on ­­­ _ n t,.-- ilc' i4il,dings..._,_Mr�.�q state!4..,,.ppTbqp§ we .should have an 2 -­ o .4 ot in lieu Drovision�,,for free, stan ding signs that are low profile. D'3 73 E :A - �t 4; :�C� '.T�Dc.'U Z 1,90) eo, ai.. d r af sign ordin ance would uld.. be pre- ;pared and ajpublicheaiing wou set for the ..Plan-.T- -ni gijCqmmission 9f-.,Eebruary,l, or as ..soon thereafteri.,asi- pos sible . dep pnding on the number of other_, items to-, e,,heard-i . gpg]Fi.,,.-Wrig4,t_ l requesi . - if ijeengAction Center could ,be-. considered - bef ore,.,,Char1es,,Lundstrom's rezoning application pe this T;7as:tach §oo1 might and many- ., ,scho6l-..children,--were.,in-.the audience. This arrangement ,,�,,.�F4s,satisfactory DANIEL_BARYkCK/ _the y,,. Barwick for % ,t#. a Hall exp�qined the A Petaluma eopl �_ _�e,,qpryices, to convert an. PERMIT, U19-r7&ISITE1 , , existing,-,residence located theccorner of *East Wash- DESIGN REVIEW ;'r .r,,ingt9!j S•peev,.dnd .,Nor th.,jMcDowell -Blvd,. into a Teen Action Center. Thei,,bjiilding­is to �be used.as office space and.a workshop area for artis'and-crafts programs. He , -exvlained -- th& ap icant As proposing to .:,..,acquire 4ritten !,f,rom the Petaluma Plaza �,-T*Shopping ,CeLit,,er) to, allow .:,for the, of . f ive additional pag ., -estavailable.spaces are ; located iat Jeas t450jf§e from the- - .and pedestrian ..o tre site -p arking lot _requires crossing , __ ­.1 f rq%,the ig . t�4e - Sp c ,,��ing�,,lot�-.accec.ss d' ive and North M Blvd. nd b'1*­jrU"ir' ,to consider--,t--he,,,Envito.rimiental Impact Da Tq ,�aryick, representing - .,­stat Center ig�4 project 0 7 4- Petaluma City Planning Commission.:.Minutes, January: 18, 1977 would be an added facility. for - .City recreational acti- vity use .The.site. would be used As.office.space.and for County agency.and Police.Department referrals. - There would- -not be any large group gatherings; approxi- mately 10: -cars would utili:zng.the center over a one -week period, which.should not.- add.to..the present. traffic. ° The Center does not have ad'equa'te' space to some of their activities. Marj Delgado neighbor, stated she had no objection to the.proposed.center., Most of these children do not drive,, so there- would not be additional .traffic in the area. As far,as the Center creating any noise or unsIghtlessness.,,`.her husband would not permit this to happen. Brian Wimms,stated there:was no cause.why the Teen Center - should not be allowed.'. The public hearing was closed. Comm..Harberson moved to direct the Planning Director., to prepare and p.o.st' a '.Negative Declaration .for the project The motion - was seconded by Comm. Waters. AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3 The public hearing to• consider the Use Permit.was opened: Bertha Wimms of the Probation Department, ® stated that , .many..youngsters frequent this intersection . and there has not been a.problem as far as safety is concerned. Mr. Barwick.presented a letter from-.the Petaluma Plaza Merchant's,Association agreeing to allow. parking of approximately five to ten ears in the shop- ping dent'et parking, lot :next to .North McDowell Blvd. between.McDonald',s and the Brandon Tire Store. The Commission advised Mr. - Barwick t a, obtain a written I agreement from'the Petaluma Plaza Association that the merchants .,were . -in accord with the use of the .parking lot. Mrs Delgado stated their home was next.door to the�prop0sed center and she and her husband were 100% in favor of the property being-used as a Teen Center. ... the'Teew,.Center is allowed, more traffic control will be provided in the area. The, only time there are parking problems is,when this house is empty; we should give the,Teen Center a try. She.would like to see a sup - t where chldren; can go in place of hanging out in the downtown section. Bonna Barrett stated she, ;had contacted people in the neighborhood and they 'were in support of 'thee Teen Center. Comm.,Harberson questioned what other location..had.been investigated 'for a Teen Center? `Mr. Barwick stated commercial 'zoned property is 35c a ~ square foot and this price s`out 'of,.range for the center. We need a loca- } ton that -is accessible to the east and west side. -5- Petaluma City Planning - Commission Minutes January,18, 1977 John Allison .stated - the - :People Center is located,on °the;.busily traveled Petaluma.Blvd.. North which' creates a- problem for 'access to the .p.ro,p.erty. " Several hundred d -rop. into- the center ,during a .month and there have never- been= any.: problems as a resul't°.-of :;,vandalism ':or-;.wh, ere .the police had to be called „'', :The p- ublic .hearing closed,. Mr.- ::..Hall stated the main concern of -staff was that _parking was not in roximit p y .and of the .center .would have - to.-- cso.ss busy streets of North McDowell • and Washington ..Street. -- Also =, - the- nearest available, parkin_ g spaces exceed the. maximum of 300 ... feet but.' perhaps this' would not , create, -a problem and a variance could..he granted. Comm. Popp s -tated that as a condition -.of the -, use - permit parking could be reviewed. Mr: Barwick`.stated.the Recreation Department had been contacted and a'Teen drop -in program will started. Comm. Popp moved,'to grant Use:.Permit-to allow for a ' Teen Action Center... The motion was - seconded by Comm.. Harb'erson. AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3 Comm. Harberson;- stated -that-Condition M • requires the - ,.Teen' :Center'.:sha1.1 • -no t; be occupied' by ,more than ten - - persons at one time 'should, be deleted <as.,this require- ment is ;unenforceable and not , required. Mr. Barwick requested.the_.condition under #4 to provide a exit from, the rear of the: building:, be deleted. Mrs. Delgado stated the house has a front door access and large.-windows in the rear which.could be used as exits. Comm: Wright°.stated the•Building Code mandates that other- .exits,be provided and the condition.that a second exit from-_the .rear' of the building . be .:provided' should be discussed with. the Building- Department. Comm. Popp moved to ap:prove:the. site design for the proposed' Teen Action Center:.with conditions of approval .as recommen- ded b the.s aff with-the following changes: Condition shall be deleted: . .The - motion was Comm., Harberson. AYES 4 _NOES, 0 ABSENT 3 CHARLES,LUNDSTROM Mr:, Hall expained. the request.by Charles Lund's_trom to E.I.,Q. EVALUATION/ rezone 2,9 acres located-,:4t­607 East'Madison,Sareet REZONING..FRQM`_ from - . R =1= 6;.500 to' R- C" , :( Compact Residential):. The _site R -1 -6, 5.00; 10 .R -7C`: - _ is - bordered on enorth, by the Petaluma .River and (COMPACT: RESIDENTIAL): single =f q .residences one' -,a1-1 other- sides. The lot is - proposed to -be subdivided into small lots for low C Petaluma City Planning - Commission Minutes, January 1.8, 1977 . cost cluster development and no plans have been submitted at: this time. The.adjoi.ning lot' to the east' is' 725 feet in ' length, but only 89 feet in width and develo'pnent' of - the proposed site without ihc'lusion. of this neighboring- parcel would practically k render undevelopable' because of its inadequate lot width. . ,Access ;to the, site is' provi °ded via Madison Street the south and an' unimproved city owned access easement to the'west. Af er' 66AsiderabTe discu'ssion''b ' the commission, Comm. Waters moved that the applicant withdraw his app.lica- j tion to :rezone the "proposed property as insufficient l information had been submitted ° by the applicant, and that a new application along with plans, be submitted. for.develo:pment - of the property; ..that the applicant Should- attempt .to acquire the adjoining-lot to the east for'access of said property,; and, further, that fees +' for re- submittal should - be waived. The motion was made without prejudice. The motion was,seconded by Comm. Popp.' Mr. 1.4ndstrom. verbally withdrew his application and agreed submit a letter' to withdraw his appli- cation. i `AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3 j I It was.a unanimous decision of -the. Commission to con- tinue th.e - meeting past the hour of 10 :30 p.m. JOHN 'DOBERNECK /.E.I.Q. Mr.. Hall explained the request by John .Doberneck to EVALVATIONJVARIANCE allow two variances f.or; room additions in the rear REQUEST': and left.side,yard of the property located at 515 "C" Street.. Surrounding the site are single- family homes to the east-,and south, a duplex to the west and St. John's:Ep.scopal Church'to, the, north. A family room addition is proposed to be located in the rear yard and six feet from the rear property 'line, and an attached two car garage,is proposed-to be situated six feet from the left "sid'e property ,line and contiguous to _the rear property line. - The house is in,'a dilapidated condition and' entire sife is :in .need of additional. care. The public, hearing to consider the Environmental. Impact Questionnaire was opened. No comments were offered from and public.hearing was closed. Comm. Waters moved. to direct the Planning Director to prepare and,post,a.Nega.tive Declaration for the project. The' motion - was seconded by Comm..Popp. AYE8 'A NOES 0. ABSENT. 3 -7- r s Petaluma,City Planning January 18, 1977 - The public hearing to consider a variance for the project..was .opened., Mr: Doberneck stated :the house was built.-in '1888, and he would like to preserve.:and re- store the house to its historical New England style. The lnt:erior be redecorated and made into' -a two bedroom home Comm: Harberson stated that ;renovation of this property- would. improve the, neighborhood.' Comm. Popp stated any improvement in this area -mould be' an .. asset. - Mr. Hall stated there was in the front portion of the house to make this room addition, in place of the.suggeste& ba'ckroom addition. The public hearing was closed Comm: Popp moved.to grant the variances:bas.ed on the findings:,ndicated in the staff report, and further findings that.: 1) Any`changes.made in front of the house would creat'e' ;hardship peculiar to the property, because of its historical significance. 2 Other residences in the vicinity have the same similar nonconforming setbacks. t he motion was seconded by Comm. Harberson. AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3 JOHN 0. YOUNG.FOR Mr Hall. explained the request by John Young for Pauline. PAULINE :LERER /:E..L.;Q., , - Lerer °,for-• a. proposed two lot split and modification to EVALUATION /MODLFICA- the Subd'ivis on'Ordinance to allow for one lot to have TION...TO SUBDIVISION an average depth of 95 feet where 100 feet.-is required, ORDINANCE; °' for property located at 212 kill Street. The, 19,150 square foot Iot`is unimproved and extremely steep. The proposed lot split would - result in two lots, both of which would be over 9,000 sq.. ft..in area.. The public "hearing to consider the Environmental.Impact Questionnaire was opened. No comments were...offered from -, the°audi'en:ce and. the public hearing was closed. Comm;.Harberson - moved to direct the.Planriing Director to prepar.e•and post a Negative-Declaration for the project. The motion, was seconded by Comm. Popp. AYES 4 NOES 0 ABSENT 3 Comm moved a modification to the.Subdi- vision' Ordinance " be granted; "to;the.proposed two. lot . split for St property located at 212 Hill reet to..allow the of•one lot with.an average depth of 95 feet where the Subdivision Ordinance requires 100 feet, Petaluma City Planning - Commission - Minutes; January. 18 1977 - due to eculiar - circumstances and .lot configuration of I p g the property, The motion by Comm. Waters. AYES 4 NOES - 0 ABSENT 3 ADJOURNMENT:. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. I i Attest "'�'a° . A