HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/08/1977AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 8, 19.77
•PETALUMA
AD:TnURNED, MEETING
7 : 30 P.M-.,
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.,. CITY HAUL'' = 'PETALUMA, rCALIFORNIA
The Planning Commis'sion, encourages
applicants nor Ath'eir representative to. -be
available:at the meetings to
answer -,questions, ,,tions,.o,`that no agenda items need
be deferred to -a later -date due.to
I
a lack of: pertinent information.
PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TLAG
ROLL CALL:{ Comm. Bond
Head Harbe,rson Horciza ;
Popp Waters
Wright
STAFF: Ronald F. Hall,
Planning Director
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1.
CORRESPONDEN CE:
1
7-11 INVESTORS- 1.
Public -Heating to evaluate the Envirommental Impact
E.I:Q. EVALUATION/
Questionnaire of proposed' rezoning from R-M-G
REZONING FROM R-M-G
(Garden Apartment) to C-0 (Commercial Office).
(GARDEN APARTMENT) 2.
Public Hearing.to consider the rezoning application
®TO:
C-O.(COMMERCIAL
of 7-11 Investors to rezone approximately 10,000
OFFICE): $
square feet located a.t. 220 Howard Street.
RICHARD LIEB-E.T.Q. 1.
Public Hearing to evaluate the Environmental Impact
EVALUATION/REZONING
Questionnaire of proposed rezoning from R-1-6,500
FROM R-1-6J,500 TO
to R-C (Compact Residential).
R-C('COMPACT RESIDENTIAL): 2.
Public Hearing to,consider the rezoning application
of Richird'Lieb for Goltermann, Glazier and Hansen to
rezone the .29,000 sq.ft. site located at Eighth and
F Stree"ts.
C. W. DAWSON FOR HENRIS 1.
Public Hearing to evaluate the Environmental Impact
SUPPLY., ING;.- E_I.Q:
Questionnaire of proposed addition to the existing
EVALUATION/SITE DESIGN
sales building, located at 741 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-1-6,5QQ.TO R-C-(COMPACT
R-C (Compact.Resident-ial).
RESIDENTIAL): 2.
Public Hearing to consider the rezoning application
o'f Robert Brunner to rezone AP008-291-02 located at
212.Seventh Street
E.etalun_ia- Planning; Coaanssion
;,
=
AGENDA
Mar.cfi.,8a , 19 7 7
..
CITY OF PETAI'iJa EJ.,�j,, 1;
Public Hear-ing; to evaluate
_ the Envi'r,.onmental Impact
EVALUATIQN•%AMENDMENT 'OV
Q.ues.eionnaire, o'f proposed
Ameridment' of Zoning
ZONING ORDINANCE N0.
0r.dinance No 1072 NC',S
(Sign Sect.ion).
1072 N-.G.S.
g_
pub_lie fear n' to' consider
Amendment to -Zoning
(SIGN :SECT'IONY:
=
Ordinance No:'•1072:;N =C:S.
(Sl_gn,;:Sectioii)
ADJOURNMENT :
_ .. _
n _
I:
MI.N'UTE'.S.
.PETALUMA CITY' `PLANNING- COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1.977
REGULAR ;MEETING y 7 :.'0 - P . M.
CITY "COUNCIL 'CHAMBERS,, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
PRESENT' Comm.. Bond,, Harbersorik, Horciza, Popp;, Waters,, Wright
(*arrived 8::2'2 p.m.)
ABSENT: Comm. Head „...
STAFF:, Ronald F. Hall., Planning tyD.irector
APPROVAL -OF MINUTES: The minutes of February 15, .1977v�ere approved as sub-
mitted.
i
-CORRESPONDENCE: Mi. Hall.explaine.d the processing schedule and gave the
° Commi.ssion copies, of, the draft :Envi.ronmental 'Report for
the proposed Hillttest Hospital. A -special study ses-
s'ion::on;. the project..is scheduled to -be heard by, the Planning Commission on March
2'91; ,197X A site. Design Review meeting ihs scheduled for Marc21, 1977, to
include !the. architect-, Planning ,Commission represen,tat,iyes and City staff.. A
Planning, Commission public hearing is scheduled for April 19, 1977 on the certi-
ficationf of the final. E..;I. .R."; modification to 'the General Development Plan, PUD
Rezoning, and Site -Design, Review:,' Mr,. 'Hall explained the •reason for the emer-
gency .,scheduler and, ;said that the; .E: I. R: had to be certified by,' April 25, in
order fo,,r the :hospital to, break, ground on or before June .24, 1977. .I,t, wa's - the
'. general,.�consensus ,thaw the. March 29, 1977.:sit'e' design meeting' would be held at
4::,00 p,. m.
Mr. Aalli stated the.PUD rezoning.:; s pArt.of ,the, planned community development of
Qantas, Development. Comm. :B`ond_:co =ented .that if the hospital is buying land in
the middle of QAntas..D_evelopment,,Q.antas Development is riding in on the coat
tail o.' the hospital, knowing ia'is;,.an 'emergency project.. From .a planning
standpoint; it, should.be zoned med1cal:and no't•a.part of the proposed subdi-
vision. i Mr. Hall advised .he:„would,-;have a representative .from the hospital
district,present at the meeting to explain why the" rezoning is in conjunction
with? the' Qantas progress..
Mr,. Hal1.. indicated thdt' -members.. of the Livermoke Planning Commis's.ion would ,be in
Petaluma on March .15, between -3':.00and 5:00p.m.; and asked. if the Commission
could be present to contribute and express thei.r:planning views to the visitors.
7--%Il INVESTORS- Mr. Hall .explained the proposal of 7-Eleven Investors to
,EVALUATION./ rezone :ap.prox_imately, 11,,,000 sq...ft: of land located at
REZONING FROM R-M-G. 2`20.'14oward1;S'treet :from R-M-:G (Garden Apartment) to 0-0
(GARDEN APARTMENT) " "(Administrative and Professional Office).' The proposed
,TO C.-O (COMMERCIAL' medical` office building would be 3,000 sq: ft. and
OFFICE) genera,t;e :approximately 44 vehicle trips per day. The
` rezoning'. -.of. this_.property :from ' R=M-G to C-0 would in-
crease traffie, slightly.,,
The Public Hearing to consider the,Environmental Impact
Questionnaire was opened. No comments were offered from
`Z-1
Petaluma City Planning Commission Minutes-,' Mar.ch $; 1977
the:audge_nce and thePublic. Hearing was clo'sed.• Comm.. Popp moved to,di'rect the
Plarip. n Dfrec'tor to 'ps,epar'e .and. post a. •Nega'tive. ,Declaration 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 (Commercial Office;)
rezoning.. , No comments -were•, offered . fr6m the audience, -and the Public -Hearing was ,
closed.: Comm., Popp;:moved to recommend approval,of the requested C-0 (`Commercial
Office) rezoning- .to the.:City Council with the_ specific f. in The, motion was
seconded by Comm. Vaters.
AYES 5 NOES 0 ABSENT, 2
'RICHARD,'LIEB-E..I',Q. Mr. Hall explained the request. of ,Richar_d "'Lieb .repr;e-
EVALUATION•/R ZONING. sent rig Goltermann,',Gla:zier and Hansen to�irezone pro -
FROM' R-1=6., 5.00 TO per.ty located' at the southwest corner of `Eighth- -and "F"
R-C (COMPACT' Streets :f.r-om R-1-6,5.00 to R-C, (,Compact -Residential)..
RESIDENTIAL).: The applicant -proposed to.construct two 2-story duplexes
1n'19.7.7 and one or -"two duplex units. in 197.8'. 'The: -21„ 36'0
square ,foot is level and currently vacant -and sufficient.
parking spaces wouldlb.e provided,for.each unit,:.
The Public' Hearing to consider .the, ;Eiiv ronemntal 'Impac;t Questiorind re• was
opened. Mr. Pick Lieb stated, there .,would � be three, parking stalls .for one 'unit
with - a total of six stalls p:er-,duplex; and. did riot foresee, any problems with,
par:kin&., The. Publ-ic 'He'ar-ing _was• :clo"se'd. Comm. Wateft' moved to 'direct the '.
Planning :Direc:tor; ,to. prepare ,anal, post.:a Negative Declaration. for the`project.
The motion was seconded by Comm:- Horciza.
AYES: 5 NOES' :.0:. ABSENT', 2
Comm., Popp and Comm. Bond .statdd.,.they, had been ,in favor of the previous .proposal,
fore a Senior, Citizens' complex f,or 'the pro:p:erty:.
The Public 'Hearing, was opened to. :cons der the; 'pr-opo'sed . R-'G (C'ompact Residential)'
rezoning. No comments were, .of f.ered- from.`the .audience and the P:ubl_ ,c Hearing was
closed: Comm. Horciza-moved to recommend approval o:f,•.;the requested.•R-C.'(.Compact
Residential') rezoning to the, City.,,Councl'wth the. .specific. findings. The-
,motion. was, seconded by :Comm. :Popp:, •
AYES, 5 NOES` .0- ABSENT 2 .
C-... W. DAWSON, FOR Mr. Hall .exp:lained.:the request of 'C, W, Dawson-,repre-
;HENRIS SUPPLY,, INC': senting,.Henris S.'_up'p`1y, .Inc..., 'for :a proposed addition to
E.In. Q.. EVALUATION/ -the, •exis.ting„•sales building located. ;at 741 Petaluma
SITE-.DESIGN:.REVIEWc Blvd: South.. The addi`tion, '•would be a brown concrete
,.block building, and .cover• 715 square feet Of lo,t area..
The 'Rublic, ,Hear,ing; was ,.opened to goi ns,id'er� the Environmental. Impact 'Question"
nacre. Comm Wright. 'commented '.with`:,ref.erence to the site design conditions for'
Henr--is Supply in i9,69 to 'ei,ther landscape'or, install redwoods slats' along the
front chainlink'Ience 'for" ':screening, the applicant had not complied wLO, this
requirement,.
=2-
Petaluma City ;Plane rig Comm ssioh,k nutes;,. March 8; 197`7' '
Comm;{ Wright ,s:fated. ;if the property 'is landscaped' with ,,Pyra'cantha -shrubs for
scre:ening,, the shrubs;sh6uld .be watered -and _.if:the plants die, they should be
rePlaced 'with ;new p;lanfs.., Mr .:.Hal-l.;'stated that •.once Pyracantha sta-rts... to , grow,
el_
take, very ,little water,; .and. if,,l2-foo,t, 'centers. a're.:'allowed between plants,
it i ...not°;.cliff-icuit to run-P.yracantha laterals so as to have complete screening
of the property.
Comm__..,Waters asked ;if. Hehr s,,,.Supply could -provide some` type' of landscaping at
the .back portion of their -property along the river bank, "kvalheim Machinery
mprov:ed the back ..o,f their pr.operty., 'by .,:pl,anti ig ite 'plant .along ..the river bank.
Comm..'.Horc za ..cobimen:t"ed °that :due...to. the. type of .supplies Henris handled, it
would.,b.eau-tify the:-riverfront if, Henris .would plant „trees :'along the river at the -
ba`c'k. of their. gro.per-,ty.. Mr. Hall. stated trees' could. be planted that were ac-
ceptable and -in compliance.•wlth- the_. tree. lists.
The Public Heating- was..,closed... Comm.'Horci.za moved.to direct'the Planning
Director to prepare: and, -post' a,-Negative.Decla.rati:on for the project. The motion
was.s�econ.ded by Comm. Popp:
,AYES 6 NOES 0 ' ` ABSENT 1
Comm. Horciza suggested that any, -type _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 b.e accep;table.. ,..,Mr -.,::;Dawson asked, :if P'op'lar trees could be planted as
they grow easily and-. requi're every ,little water.
. Comma Waters -moved to.apps;ove:th.e,;.site..deg_ ' ,for the, proposed project with
condition's of ;approval Sias- tecommended.__b,y, the staff' and, concurred with by the
Archiitectural',and' Sit'e..Design Review Committee with 'the, following changes:
l... Building materials, .within 25. feet ::of, the front property 1'-ine,, shall be
stacked not-hi.gher than six'fee't.
7. thel, applicant -shall submit, :to,..the-Paanning D.epartmerit landscape plans
for `tree planting along the riverbank with species that are acceptable
_to the :C,ty
The motion 'was seconded ,by Comm.. ,'Horciza.
AYES 6 NOES 0 ABSENT l
BRUNNER.' - Mr-. Hal`1,; ROB�ERT'� .� . -
.. , - ,explained th`e ;reque"sty• of Robert Brunner., to
,E'.I :Q.,EVALUATION/ " re zone -p:raperay •located !°at -212 Seventh Street from R-1
REZONING FROM _R--1 6,i,5.00 .:to`. R=C (Compact'- Res idential:)'. The, =site' ton;ta'ins
6,; 500 TO R`=C (COMPACT ',... approximately 10, 000 square: f eet ' in. area _and the appli
RESIDENTIAL),: cant,' proposes,•.ta�.convert-, the existing residenceInto
-duplex: -
The Pub,lic'Hearin g„to'consider 'the EnVi,ronmental .Impact 'Ques',tlon'na'ire. was,
opened;. No comments -were. ,o.ffer.ed. from the a.udien°ce ,arid. the, public hearing was
closed.
Comae.1, Popp -moved to,, direct' -.the Planning .Dire.ctbk 'to prep'ar.e, ,a post -a Negative
Declaration for -� he,;proj'ect. The' motion was. seconded by, Comm. Wafers.
Petaluma City Planning., Cbmiiiis 'ion Minutes; March. 8, 1977'
AYES -6- NOES; 0 AB:SENT 1
The Public. Hearing was: o,p 6 1 d. . to,..,cons ider -;the proposed . oposed R-C (Coimpakt Res,iderf�i
. - -, , I 1 1. : en al)
N& coitanentsi were, offered from the audiencel.,land the, Public,'He&rinP_: was
closed.
Comm.,- Pdgg ino-ved, to recommend,_app.ro.v.al_-of '.:the reque
sted .-t' (:Compact Res1den-
tdal) rezoning;to the City Qpuncil-•vit-h-the.s
_.p.ecific findings. "The motion was,
seconded by,Comm'._Bond.
AYES 6- 409s 0 ABSENT
CITY..'OY PETALUMA Mr. "Hall, explained the proposed.,Sign Orditnafic�i "Amendment,'It - L. Q - -EVULDATIOR/ to, the,"Zoning Ordinance.wasba'sied -on the - City - ..of Novato,
AMENDMENT OF ZONING �Sign Ordinance with,
h, exit-rA,ctions.from
I f -rom Chap�ter 18,.,of' . the
'ORDINANCE, #10.7-2 NCS Municipa:1 ACode and from Section 21 of, the Zoning` Ordi-
(SIGN--SECTION): nance,.
The Ptib,"lici Hearing .tor consider the. Env1rohmAntdl. Impact
Questionnaire was opened. _No .comments were offered from, the audience and the
-Public He'alring.wa_s zlosed.
Comm. Horcizd moved to- direct.iffie Planning .,Direc,-qr- to pxepqre'*,and 'post a, -
Nega.tiVe Declaration. for the: p:toj,ect, 'The motion was�.sec-o ded by Co ' Haiber-
n e Comm'
.son.
AYES-- ..... 6 -NOES, 0 ABSENT'
.'Mr,. Hall
all reviewed theproposed.Slgit Ord- na nc.e, .,Aifiendmentwith the Cbmmiss1bh and
the .1ollowin.g. recommendations and comments -were-made.:''
.Pagel Free -Standing -Signs - ,Add_:: -,and identifying- the building_ use on the
property in which the, sign 1-s l6cated,.
Page 3 = Conipliahce-With :Building-.-'&,_,Zonng-,,Reg'ula,t-ions All !signs ere
cted
wfthin>'the City
. . . . . (typographical error).
Page 4, .(K) Such signs shall be maintained f
or a period of 30Y_�s ,dd- rr . -at -her
than :14 days.
Page, 6- Lighting- OX Free -Standing, -,Signs, --,."-,Consensus t1fat billboards should be
"excluded from: tihisi: section 'and treated independently.
Pagq `8 Free-S.tandi fig. Signs Comm., Wright :stated, that th&',maximuirf height
9ROUld tot- exceed 10!-.- as -20' * s hs are too gaudy.. 'He Zave, as a- f ac-
simil.e, the 'Kentucky Y,,fied Chicken. It was felt that the height of
building;. ,
o:uld control this: if the eavo- line were specified - i n the.
...T., c,
,ordinance-,(height of line).,
PPage 8 ?.ro'jecting 1Slgns - 'The commit tee:.favo''red, changing this section I to read:
One , pro.�_. -a e with a 16' :so. ft.
area,maximumJe6l't Ag, sign for each building .front;age , Q . _ 0
,aifd not projecting .over four' (4) feet, 1-t.0m. ,any, w 11. surface.
y , a
•
P6tald`ma- City Planning Commission ;Minutes , March. 197 7'
The CommlasioA, fav-6re .,retairilng ' the -�existing'provi'slon for -I& sq.,. ft..
and 2=foot. r'ra �ections';
The,-r6verse :order to `be zdded..
(C) No ground,..flQbr_.Qcc4pant. shall exdeed.200 sqp?re feet with
a maximum, * of ,3.00 square, feet. for lots 21,a.cr.e,s or more..
Th&JP'ublic Hearing was!, opened to' consider;' -the sign ordinance amendmen-t.
Fred_ S, ch.-eam. ,:Chamber of'-.Commercej expressed,concerh lbr.the maintenance of signs
ans :asked that-, a semi !annual, .6b s-&-r-yalicd, be.made of all. signs
igns 'in the .-commuriity..so
-that,,old. signs and sl` - g-i ns. n need of repair will: be broug
ht' to code.
Mr., Hall stated Section XIV - Violation, arid A . batement in which _the_.Ch_ief,_Bui1&7
ing.jnppector 'Shall. 'give written .notice to�th
n i, e e, p,ermit,tee 'of unsafe or insecure
signs..�,
-Mark 'Barber, Sign, C-onitittee. :-stated.that .billboards are not considered a frees;
,scan -ding, sign;
Outdoor a4verzti.s.i;ag;should ..-b,e listed independently. -.Mr. Hall
quot , e& the.,.Outdoor -Adverti.,§�i,,n'g-S.t,.-tiictfuto- section and :added a free-standing sign.
should', 9dv er-t:Lse: the biis1n6ss,'ok.building tself..,
Mr. 'Barbe r `felt', ;that the -,s igh, area re-quireh&nt that one square foot of. sign area
for , e y ery ground level lineat.-.-foot of building, f �=ontage, etc., would
ould be suffi-
cient in 'the, downtown areabut wo'u'ld',noLt be -adequate .for other areas. where cars.
are. travelling at. a higher rate, of'.spP ed'. 'He -added that the '20-foot height for-.. fries -stand ng signs are limited.. due �_, to,.'th,e . ea, ve,. -line and eave line should be
adde& to th'S; section. S,.'ervice, - station sig
ns should be 12 feet, in height so as
.not. to be struck by cars..
,Mr. Dick.Liefi asked why free-st-nding.,signq could not 'be lighted? Comm. Wright
answered 'bec sd, ;of the gl
._dre,,.,.- Mjc,.-,Lieb-:.stated that_directly'Lighted signs for
small; .busi be,
businesses particularly, if 11gh�ts _are concealed should permitted; large
billboards! have, of this type,
Victof- D,eCarli -;suggested: the.height of -a marquee -should be seven feet instead of
:eipzht,., f ee.t six. inches. HeAs-ked,-. -in bUildg with five„ entrances with indi-
vi
dual' vidual't,6nants was r.estti.dtO-d...to:,,-�tht..eesigns. Mr. Hall stated this type of
structure, is not 'spec-i 'center but as a building having five
r
ten.ants, Mr.. DeCarli questioned-..if-..a,:"di.reo,�y
directory indicating the tenants ,of a
buildin� and their type _pe of shops,wpuld be. permissible. Mr. Hall explained that
in the case - of the Ian ding would .'have one sign and apart, of the -
Sig' allotment would identify the tenants .within the; building with, individual"
_Janie'Rarm.44 -stated- th-e Petaluma --_.Redevelopment Commission recommended. a four
year program for. the downtown..re:g4rdring.: the abatemerit of signs. If a -sign is
only going to :change when.th.er_'U.se1..,Pormit- is chdnged;-. there -wil.l.be very little
chang&;,in the downtown ;sect, -ion'.. -..--She -indicated smaller signs, would be more,
feasible, in, the,. downtown area,,- but, .,in. the outer Areas Where cars are travelling
at -d.: fqater :rateof s'peed.highE i r-. and%largey signs -would have better visibility
for 'the ffiot.otist. Commw Bond questioned - the reasoning. for the four year -time''
limitation. I Ms. - Waman .s tated- - the, -four -years was a compromise situation. If
these s1jzn§ could`be bro`ught,.`:into-.'confo rmance.it would -greatly enhance.the
downtown area;. The Public 'Hearing, was closed-.
.Petaluma•'City "Planning Commission"Minutes, March 8, 1977
Comm. Harberson mov,ed t'o..:iecommend,.approval of -the ameridment to 'th"e,,_S,ign -Section
of"''the 'Zoning Otdinance-_20-M4: to .he"City . Council with: changes; as ,r-ecomuierided
by -the Planning Commission. The zmation .was seconded' by 'Comm., Horciza..-
AYES 6.. NOES, 0 ABSENT 1.
aft'10^
ADJOURNMENT: There. _being •'no� further business, the ;meetin` g adjourned
"
c.4'5 'p:. m.
Chairiat
f/