HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/08/1977A G E N D A
PETALUMA CITY PLANNhNG COMMISSION MARCH 8 , 19:77
7:30 P.M-. .
• ADTOURNED. MEETING '
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL `' PETALUMA, , CALIFORNIA
The Planning Comm ission encourages applicants or'th'eir representative to . e
available :at the meetings to answer - :questions, that no agenda items need
be: deferred to o later -date due.. to a.lack,of-, pertinent information.
PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
ROLL 'CALL'{ Comm. Bond Head Harberson Horciza
Popp Wa i ters Wright
;STAFF: Ronald F. Hall, Planning Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
CORRESPONDEN CE:
7 -11 INVESTORS- 1. Public Hearing to evaluate the Envirommental Impact
E.I:Q. EVALUATION/ Questionnaire of proposed' rezoning from R -M -G
REZONING FROM -M -G (Garden Apartment) to C -0 (Commercial Office).
(GARDEN APARTMENT)
7 2. Public. Hearing.to consider the rezoning application
• TO C- O.(COMMERCLAL of 7 -11 Investors to rezone approximately 10,000
OFFICE): $ square ; feet located a.t 220 Howard Street.
RICHARD LIEB - E.I.Q.
1.
Public Hearing to evaluate the Environmental Impact
EVALUATION /REZONING
Questionnaire of p"roposed_rezon'ing from R -1- 6.,500
FROM 'R-1-6,,50.0-TO
to R -C (Compact Residential).
R- C('COMPACT RESIDENTIAL):
2.
Public Hearing to, consider the rezoning application
of R chird'Lieb for Goltermann, Glazier and. Hansen to
rezone the .29,,000 sq.f't. site located at Eighth and
F Streets.
C. W. DAWSON FOR HENRIS
1.
Public Hearing' to evaluate the Environmental Impact
SUPPLY., ING.- E.I.Q.
Questionna =ire of proposed addition to the existing
EVALUATION /SITE DESIGN
sales building,, located at 7'41 Petaluma Blvd South.
REVIEW:
2.
Site Design Review considerations for project.
ROBERT BRUNNER- E;.I.Q.
1.
Public Hearing to evaluate the Environmental Impact
EVALUATION. /REZONING FROM
Questionnaire of proposed rezoning from'R -1 -6,500 to
R- 1- 6,5Q0-'TO R- C'(COMPACT
R -C (Compact.Resident -ial).
RESIDENTIAL'):
Z.
Public Hearing to consider the rezoning application
o'f Robert Brunner to rezone AP008- 29 -1 -02 located at
21.2 Seventh,Street
C .
Petaluma lAhn ng Commission
;,
A'GEND.A
hdr.ch. ,'8 , 1.977.
CITY. OF PETALiJMa, E I ; 1
Public Hearing, to ev�alua a
the Environmental Impact
:-
•.
EVALUATION/'AMENDMENT'OF`
Queseionnaire.of proposed
Ameridnien of Zoning
ZONIivG. ORDINANCE : N0.
072
Ord:inance No. 1 N C S.
(Sign S "e`ction;).
1072 N. C S
2:.
Public iie arnng'to consider
Amendment to laning
(SIGN :SECTION)
-'
Ordinance No.'1072:N.C:S.
(S`gn .Se`ction):' '
ADJOURNMENT ~''
_
C .
n
ABSENT: Comm. Head
STAFF:, Ronald F. Hall Planning Director
M I : N ' U T E'. S
PET ALIT MA ` CITY' 'PLANNING ',COMMIS'SIQN MARCH 8, 1.977
REGULAR ,MEETING y 7 3`0 P,'. M,
CITY" COUNCIL 'CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
PRESENT , Comm. Bond, .Harbersorik, Horc-iza, Popp;, Waters,,_ Wright .
0arrived 8,:22 p.m
APPROVAL;,' OF MINUTES',,: The minutes of February 1'S, ,1 -977 were- approved as sub-
i
mitted.
CORRESPONDENCE: Mr. Hall.explaine.d the processing schedule and gave the
4 Commission copies, of, the draft 'Envi.ronmental 'Report for
prop l llcrest H6sp,' al-. A•special. study ses-
sion,.on;.1the -, project..is scheduledto -be heard by the Planning Commission on March.
: A site Design Review meeting is schedile.d. for .March 21, 1977, to
include the architect Planning ,Commission repres'entatiyes and City staff., A
Planning- .Commissi.on public hearing, is scheduled f,or April 19, 1977 on the certi-
ficatiogk of the final E.-I.. R.' mo'dificaiion to th`e General Development Plan, PUD
Rezonin 1 and S- ite.Design. Rev ew Mrs Hall ' explained `the •reason for the emer-
gency schedule- and, said that, the; ,E. I. R: had to be certified by" April 2'5 , in
order for the :hospital 'to break ground on or 'before June .24, 1977 :I,t'. wa's - th.e
general; consensus Atha -t - the. March 29, 1977 site design meeting' would be held. at
4.•00 p'.M :
M.
Mr., 'Hall: stated the. PUD rezon ng..; s pArt.of ;the planned community development of
Qantas D' Comm. : B`ond_ :'commented that if the hospital is buying land in
the middle of QAntas..Development, Qantas Development is rid'in'g in on the coat
tail of� the iospit'al, knowing it - �is�,.an emergency, project.. From .a planning
standpoint, it, should - be zoned medical: and not •a.,part of the proposed subdi-
vision.. f Mr. Hall advised he,;wauldr..have arepresentative .from the hospital
.district;, present at the meeting to explain why the rezoning is in conjunction
with? the' Qantas progress..
Mr,. Hall.. indicated that' members. of the Livrermore �P;lann in - Commission would be in
Petaluma on March 15, between-3':.00 and 5x00' p. m., -and asked.if the Commission
could.be present to contribute and express thei.r :planning views to the visitors.
7 = -.11 INVESTORS Mr. Hall .explained the proposal of 7- Eleven Investors to
E.I.Q. ,EVALUATIONJ rezone .approximately'11,,,000 sq.• :f't: of land located at
REZONING FROM R -M -G: 220 - 'Howard„ 'Street from, R -M -G (Garden Apartment) to 0-'0
(GARDEN APARTMENT) '(Administrative and Professional Office) -. The proposed
TO C;-O (CIO ERCIAL ' medical of'fi'ce building would. be 3, 000 sq : ft and
OFFICE) ;: generate :approximately 44 vehicle trips per day. The
` r-ezoning -.of. this_- property ;from R -M -G to C -O would in-
creas e traffic slightly.;
The Public Hearing t'o cons der :the,Environmental .Impact
Questionnaire was- opened. No comments were offered from
Petaluma City Planning . "Commission 'Minutes",' March 8', 19,77
'the audience and the-Public Hearing was ,tlo'sed 'Comm. Popp moved to direct the
P1ann 5 :Director to prepare and pons "t a Negative for the project:
'The motion was ;seconded by Comm., Horciza..
AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT . 2
The Public Hearing was opened -to ''consider the proposed C; -O (.Cgmmercial. Office)
rezoning'.. , No comments were° o- f- fer-ed . from the audience - and he Public was ,
closed, : Comm:. Popp::move
d to recommend approval of the r- requested C -0 (Commer,cial
Office) rezoning .to .the.C'ty Council with the specific findings The motion was
seconded b Comm 'Waters.
AYES 5 NOES' 0 ABSENT 2
RICHARD, LIEB- .,I.,Q. Mr. Hall .explained the request. of Richard "Lieb repr;e-
D EVALUATION- /REZONING. sentii g .Goiltermann, 'Glazier and Hansen to� : pro=
FROM' R- 1- 500 TO p:er.ty located at the - southwest corner of 11' hth and "F"
R -C
(COMPACT' Streets from R -1 - 5.0.0 to ;R -C, (Oobipac;t - Residential)..
RESIDENTIAL):; The applicant proposed to ,construct two 2 -story duplexes
1n-197-7 and one or duplex units in 1978.. "The •21„ 36'0
square foot i s and cuxrent'ly vacant and sufficient,
parking spaces would b:e provided, for .each unit.,:.
The Public' Hearing to •consid'er: the,";Environemntal 'impact Questionnaire was
opened. Mr. Dick 1ieb stated there.tzotild be three, parking stalls for one `unit
with - a of six stalls pe d
parkin &., Th'e. Public ' Hear - nwasclossed 'd Comm , n Watersemoved n to p d rect
p g r.: g
Plain =ing .D rector ,to: preprare _and, ,pro t: _a Negative Declaration. for the " project.
The motion was 'seconded by Comm:_ Hoic za.
AYES: 5 NOES 0:. AB'SENY, 2
Comm., Popp and Comm., Bond staged :they had 'been .in favor .of the previous "proposal,
for a Senior Citizens. complex for the pro:perty:.
The 'Pub,lc 'Hearing was opened' to :.cons.der the; `propo'sed. R -C' (. compact Res - dental`)'
rezoning. No comments were offered- from.`the .audi!ence` and the P.ublic'Heariing was
closedi Comm. Horciza moved to recommend approval Hof, •.,the requested -R.C. (Compact
Residential) rezoning to the, City, ,Council with the, .sp.ecific findings,. The
; motion. was, seconded by •,Comm P ?opp :.
AYES, 5 NOES` 0. ABSENT' 2 .
C. R. DAWSON, FOR Mr. Hall :explained, :the request :of 'C W, Dawson -,rep
re-
HENRIS S"UPP,LY,,, INC': senting..Henris S.'upp`1y, .Ine. 'fo_r-- a proposed addition to
g .,sales b
E I:.Q EV ALUATION/ the exis.tin wilding located. :at 741 Petaluma
S1TE'::DESIGN:.REVIEW :' Blvd,: South,. The 'addition, •would be a brown concrete
block building and .cover 715 squa - feet of lo,t area,.
The Public, ,Hearings was .opened to ,cons;ider' the Environmental. Imp ac.t. Question"
naire Comm Wright: commented '.wi.th:,reference to the site design conditions for'
Henry Supply in 1969 to <ei.ther landscape o. "r install redwoods slats' along. the
front chainlink'•fence -for 'screening the app1icant, not complied with this
requ .ement,.
-2-
Petaluma City ,Planning Coinmission.. M'nutes; March S ` 1
Comq.{ Wright stated ;-f' the property is landscaped with Pyracantha - shrubs for
scre.ening,, the shrubs ; should be watered�.,and_,if .the plants> • die, they, should be
replaced with new plants., Mr.: :Hall stated that .once Pyracantfia starts..to, grow,
they take, very 1-it, Ie 94 t _-, er,, .and if,,12-f oot centers are :`allowed between plants,
it i< not .,d:ff- icult 'to. run- Pyracantha laterals so as to have complete screening
of the property,
Comm: .,Waters asked If Heinr ..Supply could -provide some type' of landscaping at
the .back portion of their_property ,along the river bank, Kvahtieim Machinery
improved the -back ..of. ,;their property,, 'by ..planting ice 'plant .a.long ..the river bank.
Comm..':Horc za ..commeria'ed, :due...to. the. type of supplies Hen'ris handled, it
would.;beautify the'-riverfront if Hen-rip would plan;t,.tre.es along the river at the -
ba6k.of their. proper „ty.. Mr. Hall stated - trees' could.be planted that were ac-
ceptable and -in :compliance.. the:. tree. lists.
The Public Hearng:was closed Comm. Horci.za, moved,to direct °the Planning
DI re 4or to prepare; and, -posts a_ Negative:Dedlar'ation for the project. The motion
was seconded by Comm. Popp:
AYES 6.,.- NOES 0 ABSENT 1
. Comm. Horcza suggested that any;_typ.e of tree that is on the: approved list that
would, grow to a .height, of ;25. to' 30 feet and screen the buildings and gravel
piles would.-be acceptable Mr..,::;Da, n asked :if P plar trees 'could be planted as
they grow easily and require -Very ,little. water'.
Comm. Waterer moved to. ,appr : the ••des_ gn for the, proposed project with
condition's of e approval ° ;as recommended._.by, the staff;' and, concurred with by the
Archietectural' •and Sit'e..Design Review Committee. with 'the_ following changes:
1.. Building materials within 25.f;eet of, the front property -line, shall be
stacked not -hi.gher than 'sip feet.
7. The applicant 'sha11 submit :to..the- Paanning; D,epar:tmetit lands_.cape plans
for `tree planting : along. the. ri.yerbank with species that are acceptable
to the:City.'
The motion , was seconded by Comm'.. Horciza.
AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT l
ROBERT' BRUNNER.' Mr Ha'1T explained the r que-t- of Robert Brunner, to
E. 11 Q. , EVAI UATIONI ” rezone property • loca.'t:ed ! 212 Seventh Street from R -1
REZONING: FROM �kr 6 .to'. 'R -C (Compact'- Res idential)'. The, =site contains
RESIDENTIAL;) ' (,. cant ,proposes .to :� convert exi_sti.ng r e -and the appli
6 TO R`°C CONPACT-'.. approximately roximatel 10 0.00 s' a feet' n
the' g residence .into -a
- duplex: ;
The Public Hearing „to'cons.ider ;the.EnVironmental Impact 'Questionnaire: was
closed:
,opened;. No comments were. ,o.ffer.ed from the audience , and.'-the public hearing was
� _
Comm ?,Popp 'moved to direct the Planning .D'ire.ctbk 'to prepare _a post 'a ;Negative
Declaration for -the „p;roj.ec't. - The motion was seconded by = Comm. `Waters
Petaluma City Planning,.Commsson Minutes March 8,,.1977
AYES -6 NOES', 0 ABSENT 1
The Public. Hearing wa& op;enb& to,., -;the ,proposed R -C C ompact Res.id'en't al)
re zoning. Na comments were offered from the au'dien;ce; the, Public, Hearing: was
re
osed.
Comm., Popp moved'' to recommend- appmoval, of'.'the requested 'R -'C (Compact Residen
tal), °rezoning : to the City Council with the • specific findings. "The motion was,
seconded by Comm'.,_ Bond
AYES 6 0 ABSENT 1.
CITY..'OF PETALUMA Mr,. Hail:: explained the ,propos'ed..;S' gn Or'dina_nce,`Amendment,
E:.I Q. ;EVALUATION/ to, the •Toning Ordinance. was! based`• on the City ..of :Nova °to
AMENDMENT OF ZONING Sign Ordinance with, ext- racoons .f -rom. Chapter 18 .,of'' the
Q MINAN.CE #107.2 NCS; Municipal, AC.ode and from. Section: 21 of, the Zoning° Ordi-
(S'IGN - - SECTION) :. nance,.
The Pub °tic, e- ar'ing -ta consider the Environmental. Impact
Questionnaire was opened. , _No..commegts were offered from, the audience and the
Public Hearing. ,closed, �. ...
Comm. Horeiza moved to direct . the Planning .,Direc,tor to: prepare °and 'post a
Negative Declaration -'for the projec't The motion was.s'econded by Comm: Harber-
.
•
AYES - ' .... 6 NOES- 0 ABSENT
N, 1
'Mr. Hall reviewed the proposed. Sgn.Ordinance.. with the Commission and
the .follow ng, re'commendat ons and comments -were- made,: ,
-Page 1 - Free -Standing, .Signs Add ,and identifyixrg the building_ . use on the
property in which the sign Y 1'oc_ated,.. "
Page .3 = Compli ant e•With ;Bui`l'ding &`_ , - All !signs erected
wfthin •''the Cit Y (tYP- q,graphic'al error) .
Page .4, - .(K) - Such signs shall .be maintained for a period of 30 day ,rather
than 1,4 day "s.
Page, - Lighting of Free Standing --- that 'billboards should be
excluded from, this: section 'arid t reated lhdependentiy.,
Page 8 - Other'Free- S'tandin - Signs - .Comm. Wright stated that tlae ;maximum' Height
9RO.Uld not exceed. 10'-. -as 20' * s gn.s are too gaudy. 'He gave as ; a fa'c-
simile, the Kentucky Fr ted .Chicken. It was felt that the - heig ht of
bw ld i gc :would ,c'on,trol this? if the ea„ve line were specified in the.
ordinance (height of eave,lne).
'Page 8 Prof ecting S' - 'The 'committee-favored, changing, this section, to read:
One (1) - projecting; sign for each ,building .frontage with a 16 sq. .ft., .
•
area maximum and not p:ro',7ecting • over , four' '(4) feet from ,any wa1'1: surface.
,. y g, o � ,. 1977' :
Petahuma� City P';lannin Commission ,Minutes: March�8,
The Commission favored. reta n.ing the - �exisSting provision for - 10' sq . ft..
and 2 =f.oat projections;
'The reverse :order to `be °ad.ded,:
(C) - No ground floor - .occupant shal=l exceed , 20.0 square feet with
a maximum- of 3,00 s qua re, feet for lots 2; acres or more,.
The Hearin was!,opened to consider ` -thee sign ordinance amendmen -t.
Fred_ Schram, ;Chamber of'- .Commence express ed.co,neern: =for the maintenance of signs
:.
a ins a:sked ,that. a semii - annual obs= ervance .made of all. signs 'in the .-community.. so
that.:old signs and .signs in need of repair wil=l: be brought' up to code.
Mr. Hal l stated Section XIV - Violation, arid Abatement in which _the ..Ch.ief Build=
: ing I shall give wr=itten :notice to the perm "ittee of unsafe or insecure.
signs;,
Mark Barber, Sign Committee, stated.that billboards are not considered.a free
standing, sign: Outdoor advertisiug.shouldb.e listed independently. - .Mr. Hall
quoted> thet, 0utdoor Advertising;S;tructure section and :added a free-standing sign.
shoul advertise the business or .building i'as.elf.:.
Mr. Barber `felt'. ;that the sign• 'area requi "rement° that one square fo of. sign a=rea
for ev
e_ry ° ground.;level li=near foot of building frontage, .etc., would be suffi- 11 cent in the downtown area but would 'not be adequate .for other areas. where cars;
are. travelli=ng at. a higher rate of..speed He
,added that the ' 2Q- foot.- height fora.
fit ee- `s'tan- kr g -signs are limited, :,.due�_;to th,e: eave -line and eave line should be
added: to thi. , ,section. S :er °stat ion , signs should be 12 feet .in height so as
not. to be struck by cars..
Mr. D answered becausekof the glare ebgstated directly r
Wr fo
small;•bus nes.ses partircula.rly i €._i_Rhts_are concealed should be permitted; large
billboardshave,.ths type of lighting.
Victor DeCarli -, suggested.'the height of ..a marquee should be seven .feet instead of
:e:ght.,feet si=x. inches: He, .asked,.lf .a buildi=ng with five,, entrances with i,ndi-
vidual' tenant's was res,trid .to; °tht.ee. *igns,. Mr. Hall stated this type of
structure 'is' not specif .,d8 a- .shopping center but as a building having 'five
tenants., Mr:. De :C'arli questione: d the tenants ,of a
building and their a _pe of shops ,would be. permissible. Mr. Hall 'explained that
in the case of the Lary Mart., .the=...building would .'have . one sign and a - . part , of the -
sisgn''al'lotment would identify the tenants within the building with.indviduah
.signs
' Janie.: Warman stated- the Pe;tal,uma; :Redevelopment Commiss=ion recommended. a four
year program for. the downtown ..rega,rd_in.g. the abatement of signs. I.f a sign is
only going to tchange when.the Use' Permit is changed there wil.l.be very l=ittle
change,,in the downtown section :,,. sma.l er signs, would be more,
feasible in, the,. downtown area, , hut .,in.. the outer areas where cars are travelling
J L
at a_ .faster ;rate of speed .higher` r :and signs would have better visibility
for th6, motoris.t,. Comm, Bond questioned -th'e reasonlAg for the four year -time
limitation. Ms. Warman, stated years was a .compromise. situation-. If
these .signs could' be brought . into`. conformance it would greatly ° enhance the
downtown .area; The Public 'Hearin,g closed.
-5.-