Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/19/1977A G E N D A. PETALUMA CITY PLANNING.COMMISSION` APRIL 19, 1977 �. - 'ADJOURNED` MEETING 7:30 P.M: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA,'CALIFORNIA The Planning Commission encourages applicants or- their representative to be available at the meetings:..to . answer quest•ions so -that -no agenda items need be deferred to a later date due to a lack of pertinent information. PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL: Comm. Bond Daly _,:... Head Harberson Horciza Popp Wright STAFF: 'kk Ronald F. Hall,, Planning Director I Leo P. Racha -1, Associate Planner APPROVALIOF MINUTES: f • i CORRESPONDENCE: Letter regarding the progress of -the- `Was- hington Professional Park project which is to be located; at the corner of East.Washington Street and Ely Blvd'. South. CONSENT`CALENDAR: Items appearing on the Consent Calendar will be 'considered to by the Planning Commission and will: be enacted by one motion. There will IR, be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is- desired, that item (or items) will be removed -from the Consent Calendar. 1. G.H.G. Assoc•ia.tes- Requ;es -t for Private Street Approval - Recommended approval of a .request for private street to-serve two lots of a . proposed two -lot parcel map. Property is located.on northside'of Olive Street, east of Raymond Heights: 2. City of Petaluma An`imal.Control:Shelter Addition =Site Design Review Recommended approval of Architectural and Site - '•Design Review. 3. - D. C. Holes- E..I:Q::Evaluation /Site Design - .Recommended Declaration for a proposed duplex and detached single 1 amily residence to be located- °on'N. Kentucky.Street near Cherry Streett:, Recommended Architectural and Site Design Review approval of the duplex . .and single family residence project. .4. Douglas Clegg for Petaluma Industrial -Park #3- E.I.Q. Evaluation /Tentative Map - Recommended Negative Declaration for a proposed 19 - lot Industrial Subdivision to be located on North McDowell near Scott Street. Recommended approval of the Tentative Map f'or the proposed Petaluma ,Industrial Park #30 Petaluma`Planning Commission Page_2 • HILLCRESTHOSPI'TAL 4 FINAL E .I.R. /PCD GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN MODIFICATION / PUD; REZONING /SITE 'DESIGN REVIEW: A. W. SANDERSON AND TRIPLE "S" TIRES - E.I.Q. EVALUATION /REZONING FROM COUNTY :M =1 to CITY M -L (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL /S.ITE DESIGN REVIEW: April 19, 1977 I; Public Hearing-to, consider certif catt6n'of'the Final E.I.R.. f;or'H ll-crest- Hospital and medical - related office facilities,-(North Blvd. site).. 2. Public Hearirig,to consider modi- fication to the General Development Plan.o.f the existing Qantas Development Corporation's:PCD Zoning-District. on N.: McDowell Blvd. adjacent to Lynch Creek and Lucchesi Park. 3. Public. Hearing , to consider 'rezoning of a portion of the Qantas Development property from PCD "to PUD °'for the proposed hospital site. 4. Site Des -ign review considerations for proposed 1.- Public Hearing:•to evaluate the Environmental Impact Questionnaire of proposed'rezoning'.from .County M -1 to City M -L (Light Industrial). 2. Public Hearing to consider the .rezoning appitcation of A W.. Sanderson and Trip=le "S" Tires located at southeast corner of Old Redwood Highway and North McDowell Blvd. 3: Site Design Review considerations for the project. BARBER SIGN COMPANY Public Hearing to consider the variance application of Barber (PIC -A -DILLY WOMEN S Sign Company to allow installation of a 472 sq. ft. sign CLOTHING)-VARIANCE: which does not conform to the of .sign or location of sign, of the approved sign program for Washington Square Shopping Center. LAWRENCE A. JONAS- E I.,Q. EVALUATION/ P,.I.Q. EVALUATION/ FROM COUNTY A TO CITY R -,1- 10,000: 1. 2' Public Hearing to evaluate the Environm�entat Impact of a proposed pre County A to City R =1- 10,000. Public Hearing to consider the prezoning application of Lawrence Jonas to "pre'zone approximately 7.32.acres located at the-northwest.cor of.I Street and Sunnyslope Road. HAROLD 0'. METCALFE FOR 1. Public Hearing -:to evaluate the Environmental Impact METCALFE MACHINE SHOP- E.I:.Q. EVALUATION/ Questionnaire for a proposed'machne` shop to -be located USE PERMIT /VARIANCE/ on the east.-side,-of G Street between'lst and 2nd .Street. SITE DESIGN °REVIEW: 2. Public - .Hearing to: consid'e -r a Use _Permit request for a machine shop -iii an M- L; "Light'Industrial Zoning District. 3. Public Hearing to consider , a Variance request to a Zero (0) foot interior sdeyard where five (5') feet is required and.to allow a three (3) foot street sideyard where ten (10) feet is required. 4 . Consideration of Site Design Review for the machine shop and parking: .. Petaluma Planning Commission Page 3 April 19, 1977 AMENDMENT JO THE SUBDIVISION.ORDINANCE: Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the.City Subdivision Ordinance to eliminate the section which requires Planning Commission, review of the Final. f Subdivision Map. . i CONVENIENCE MARKETS 11. Public Hearing-to evaluate the- Envi"rontLental "Impact AND FAST -FOOD i Questionnaire 6f the proposed Zoning Ordinance RESTAURANTS PROPOSED Amendment. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS,: 2.. _ Public Hearing to consider - the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment. ADJOURNMENT: • � a f • M I N U T E S > PETALUMA :CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ' ' APRIL. 1.9, '1977 i� REGULAR MEETING 7:30- P .M. CITY CHAMBERS', CITY -HALL `PETAL'UMA, CALIFORNIA PRESENT Comm Bond *, Daly;.Head * * *,- H'arberson * *, Popp, Wright • (Arr.8.00' p m. ° * *_ -9:15' p.m.) ( ( * ** Excused :9;'40 ' p m.)' "ABSENT: Comm, Horciza _ STAFF: i Ronald F; Hall, Planning`Dir`eetor' } Leo P 'Rachai, Ass.otidte Tlanner Wayne P�: Rasmussen', Assistant Planner APPROVAV OF :MINUTES': The •m in utes of. March `8 °March.l3 March 29' and March- 3l, 1.977.. were approved as" submitted. CORRESPONDENCE': 1. Re of the Planning_,.Direeto for• a, special Planning Commission meeting tog e.= held` on 'Iay .i0, 1977 , 2. Letter of: appreciation 'from "the Livermore Planning: ! Commission. 3: 'Letter ,regarding the; progress; of the Professional Park,`project located • at, the= •northeast -,`co, of East Washington . Street ; and' Ely Blvd . t­ South `It was the general consensus this item be - ,place&on the 10th CONSENT :CALENDAR 1 G H .G 'Associates., Mr. Hall explained that;.Condit on.47 of - -the. Petaluma ' 2. - Petaluma ,Animal.:Control Industrial • Park #3' Tentative Map' - be'err amended Shel +ter Addition. as these sites will•'not. be.o:ccup ed -, immed'iately. •A 3. D. C, Noles motion was: made. by Comm , Head`and seconded by Comma 4. Petaluma.Indus,trial Popp _approving,•the,resolgtions the Consent•Calendar, Park #3 including the above s AYE_$',,. 4 NOES :0' ABSENT 3- HILLCREST- HOSPITAL . Mt,..:iHal11 explained tl , e f,oilowing :;lette- rs:whad 'received FINAL E T:R, : /PCD relevant :to the:, pro,pbsed 1) a "letter from Gil GENERAL DEVELOPMENT Woodworth;. Sonoma County =.Taxpayers 2) a letter .. PLAN MODIFICATION/ from :,Joseph E�.'Sheeks a iaw,f rm, addressed to Frederick PUD REZONING /SITE Groverman o -f�the Hillcres;t Hospital of Directors- DESIGN REVIEW: ate, 3-) • a d'raf't resolution 'recommended fo'r adoption .by ' the ..Board of: Directors •of ''tlie Petaluma Hospital District` by J6seph�,E: Sheeks.. Mr explained °that on March 3;1,,19.77, a draft Environmental Impact Report. cohc'ern' g � the proposed- development "of Hillcrest Hospital had .been; disc- ussed • and evaluated :,the Commission. The "se "concerns.wer_e ad_-,- esse'd the final EIR.. In- `'addition; .the following. comments! were .received: e i i P, a g , n^ the Summary, under• •Background - -- the - •:figure 616-shourld'�be changed• to . 636 .dwelling units. Petaluma- Planning Commi.ss_on. Minutes : ..,April 19', 1977 2.. Page' '46 Line '27;° 12- inch, should read 12- foot. rn "addition;, the' eight '(8;)' comments 'f-rom. review iig,.State. and ; other - Agencies'= received after the ­above date were -..also adequately addressed . Mr. Rachal stated a new traffic: count ?had been.. taken:a't- -East. arid` North` McDowell B'l'vd and the Commissioners< had. been g- ivenn� a.. copy .this 'report; The average daily traffic, count (ADT) • previously'. showed': -710; 7;00 vehicles;, with • a peak- hour volume of 1 „100 vehicles or 9 percent of. ,the . aver. age, daily traffic;.. The: ;revised- report shows an (ADT) increase to r11,560..vehreles,,.'with „ .peak_,hour:wolume of 935 vehicles or 8 - 1;percent of the daily.. traffic..,. Tlie mitigation .of tYie traffic problem-Is the construction of Maria�-.Street. and - the •pYoposed four full lanes on,- McD'owell`'"Boi levard. The- City Engineer °l does not .,see! any problem with -'the increase of traffic., `when^ Maria Street , ­is- imp•rove&-and' McDowell is • ner,eased 'ta •four lanes Comm:, Head questioned -the new: =included all :th e: proj'ected°•proj`ecm "o-r dzd''the-repor only include” 'tl e proposed• hous "i:ng development and ahe hospital. an& , cal :facilities.. He' was - informed- that the - counts included `all 'p_ending' <proj ec_ts as- es,t mated increases., specifically 'an additional- 2000 - trip . ends,. The Public- Hearing - to consider. the .Environment6l Impact Report was opened Mr..:Del Davis :­,stated"' then McDowell -East - Wash .ngton- in- tersect.-ion is: pr- esently' or hear :opt-imum o;perat ng' capacity and'--if I "the intersection. reached t'he ' anticipated, significant adverse .impacts wotild.' • °Thd cons ^o:f Maria Street would reduce the^ traffic3 'impact ton Nor'th-McDowell and 'at the intersection' of McDowell and East Washington The left and' ,right - turn movements at this iritersectteri are the critical areas Mr.- Rachal explained 'that -t� comments- re.ce -ivied• from.,; State,:- - -Co.unty -• and..- , Loca -l' government . agencies dzd n . preseii' "t ;any' pr.o:blems to th'e� consultant .- - Mr ,;Del- ,-Davis • suitinarized the comments.: :. 1:. The locat;ioh •of the Tolay <'has- been ncorp�oramted. in .the.;EIR, on Page 34, 2. The' estimated peak hour traffic volume df-the• hospital was. added to''�the. existing traffic.- to determine, i`f 'the peak- :hour traflfic•. level would shift. A - -shift , did result to, the 3 ::0'0 to 4: time ­ interval. from -the' :normal ;5:00, to '^ °6:00 interval. 3. . 'The City Council, had requested an update • of~ -the- traffic situation and this had been - accompl shed. 4 Mr. - Tellander had'inquired,'what would °happen to. the existing and the impact 'it would' ' on the community,.. He wa's informed: that. thi impact .i :. included ,ih - they' &IR on-. 1�6' and 17. 5. , -The resolut -ion of °the, -Board -oft Directors of ..the Petaluma. Hos, al District indicates the 200, tax revenue will, not be:,used for> the-ihosp•rtal And . .. . is'`inc`luded . in­ report, cinder Append x G. Comm,. =Head; questioned the "stateinenf •indi'ca't ng the:rhos,p tal district , ne`ecYs <try 1.9.8Q would ber10:0 ,beds .., ncr .eased to 2001 °.b the e.a,r i,2.000 ;9He- statedCth s isi not a. ` realistic statement as ,. ,at, the,;.pres�ent the exa =beds ia- !not to capacity_ Mr. Davis explained the Hosp tal str ct and the Comprehensive Ho,sp, tal Agency :prep °ared .the r.ePort: The..•basi s foi ahe 'new hospital - is­that patients 2 Petaluma: Planning .-Commission.. M.inu-.tes.,-.7,. April. 191, 1977.: are Santa Rosa and otIfet-h0spita1s in the area- - due to. lack of local hospital facilities. 6. The Air Resources Board is u t -ilizih ,t -h " EIR for,... th' _ e promotion of the concepts of the State Air Program. i , explain - the , Mr. Franklin Burns, a mej tber hospital board 20(, tax is granted by''State law to Hospi 11 of the tal .d istricts . . .. ­ ._H Q " sp_ita�� `* cQ's,t I s are - subs b I y Medicare 'and Meth' cal who pay, - a:-p ercentage, - of the cost;, if there is a cost. In- this 'case the cost would_b0' $3501 y ear. m Y; Arib'th,et way to pay of f the hospita'i cost wou be to incre . patient I `s� f ees.., .ees For example - on I an 8--p er- - cent inflation factor, the total' daily patien t," cost w6uld,be $170.00. The Public Hearing was - closed. Comm. PoR' moved to certify the Environmental - -Impact ..'Report for Hill - Ho sp iial e and recommend approval- to the City Council. 'The "iTi ri io by AYES 4 NOES 1 •BSENT 2 -Mr. Radhal that Qantas! Development is working: - in conjunction with the Hi:11&re'st.fHospfta1 District. - The proposed hos pita!l will, - -noti-be -in conflict with ,the 'hous:(ng-d'ev&lopment or of 11 The P6bl f c H&ari n g w as ej�e -t 0 cbhslaiir ththe tod-if-icati-oh to the General -DeVk,6 , op. pdLent Plaft of the existing Qant"'as'Revelopient PC-Dazohin 9 'district l iocated' -- on",Ndf.th'MdDo'we1 , 1 Boulevard, adjacent to LyAch-.Creek and Lucchesi Park. -Mr., - Rachal - stated the. City otidteht PUD and will. need' transactional d , - the . Comffiissio could elez't - t& .,modify and app rove - Development Plan on' •r.' C.6wen,, 14i Hospital Administrator, stated the 'Tran.'samerica Title holds a deed -iAPTds6kbW which. transfer thb�' -t-y, tb� - th - e so-ital 'And in - 47eturn, the� proper hospital pay the agree "purchase price - o f . the _:prQp&i7 The - .Public, 'Hearing 'was cl6sed'.­ �on who, Comm -- Bond­expres§ e - cohc'e:rri,.. iildl f, on Nor th tha u yn e r ha 's moved- the lho ontd McDowell�`Bo levard at 'L ch The" - d'ev lope bridg corner near 'the i c bridg ' T-es for the e,. J ge,.. makes - .age ppy Mr. Cowen - statbd­ e was = `n'bt';sure,, ' btft when _the�.:ho,sT):UtA 4bp'ldes­f or a- building - permit m - only then can Enginee make s on the culvert, an& ;the City' Eng- T known 6 fit' then ,hospital 'bo 7 petition, they City' Zo d variance.' -There may a - benefit is r ict d - t I , ­ f cirmed' t' o - pay - for- the culvert. or it, may 'be: paid`­ f or'by'the f ouf �'cbrners. - The - ,.hospi.-tdl-'would --- il'ke- to goi along with the of - City, but did object to - the governing' tbe Comm,. Bond the original - developer- tid ,himself - of some of the "street frontage,, a ' brid e and' I brid'g an,- a 'linear park: "The original p la &� th�e' . n - .§howed' , - tYe� h'ospital to . be _ldcated',in� the' property, and not in the corner. Jon - Jos lyn, - Qarf.Uis -- expIalne'd the rearrangement - - of'. th& - hbspital was made to the advantage 'af-. and the ddV,elbpet. . Comm': Wright questioned if tfie' culve the, 'G0_hera*l,'Rev&l(5g '-modification....'Mr-i Hall- :stated it r t a: is an appx6pi�idte cori.��ide* at i4he - a'build permit is app - If 1 he. hospital 'being tons idered, , -, Qantas vax ce'-cbul�&" were no t 'bei an* would. - haVe­'the­opportunity "'of 9-ting• 4 -b�r,-idgd, oblilgat i:oh,. , Comm. Bond stated there;.' i a substantial change -. to the pr evio'usly- s:ubmi,tte plans - ,' - Qantas Development go tten. a� dut"o'f". this chl4figp�i 'and*r it,'is'- nonot' idir for- the , as .3 Petaluma.' Planning ,.Commission_,Minutes': - ::April "19;;' 1.97T hospIt'al ' to put in this bridge: Comm. 'H'ead moved 'that the ..modification to thee General Development Plan be, denied., The 'mo'tion' -`died for a rack' :of ''a second". Comm'.: Po moved, to recommend.. approval of - the modification to the General Develop meat. Plan the- it - Cbun61' with tFhe followin conditions: 1.. - The "elimination of Phase :LII °'multi -famil V .°area'des • na'tlori ;(21.3 "acres)' Y g for comparab�ler -tea replacement' with :a 15` -acre 'community hospital and a 6':3 " acre medical - related - : commercial' /profess'iona'l. office space - designation and 2. The approximately 192_ dwelling- units- (37 single - 'family and 155 P . y.. mumily- units) from the to.ta1.�636 units originally- s ecified te fab, the 'Park Place ,`Subdivision GDP: The - motion`was seconded by Comm. - Daly,. AYES 4 NOES I' - ABSENT 2 Mr Rachal 'explained .the request by the, applicants ,..:the. Petaluma Hospital Di•stri�ct and' ;Qantas- Development, that ;the hospital ;be - r rezoned.,- from PCD'- PUD:: The_ Public! Hearing `was opened , to. consider- the p,', oposed PUD, Planned ,.Unit District,, 11 rezoning The. Public Hearing was - closed: :. - _ Comm: Head = moved - that the: zoning not Abe changed;. as, traffi& and road -, conditions . do. not. :support - a ;change, in :zoning. ;; : The_.mo'tion died for,, the --lack of a:.'sec`ond Comm. .Popp `stated `he wanted- Hillcres;t. Hospital to remain : at its,, .present -site. Me' ;need_;a hospital. City will. be proud= o;f and which_ will be o -f benef1t to the citizens. The° hospital will generate. traffic, -but -if Qantas- had developed-the property 'as planned,- -a .much traf`f'ic - problem: would have been• generated_'. - ' It,wo;uld �be better pu_t up, with t- taf -f'ic condit ons .from"a• good hospital. Comm,.,; Wright stated we need. a hosplt_a ,•..despite- tra_ff•ic problems. Comm. Daly moved to. grant -the rezoning ;:and recommend_ to the City Qouncil that the hospital property be rezon ell .•f.rom PGD :(Planned ,Community ; Development')> ao -PUD (Planned -Unit Development),-;.:,.with the four (4) specific findings` - indicated in the staff 'report.. The, motion- was seconded by Comm Bond:. _ AYES 4 „ 'NOES 1 ,ABSENT; 2 . Mr Rasmuss'en•, - Assistant Planner, explained, that Phase I the development, would include , hoospital, and.: a• „power• pliant- facility.,. Thee hospital' •w,ould. - a 'two- story, ,facili_ty containing,. 82,300';,square fee of floor: area.: The .exterior building materials .nclude aluminum `coping "trip aro.uhd - the roo line, o €f white wall covering and :bronze" glazed windows..- He .1.U. the.r. explained Planning- " ;Staff. felt -minor ,exterior techniques- would increase. -the visual.: Interest. of. the building .� He' -- di:splayed slides, of hospitals - in the, San t&"Rosa.- area -that have used, the treatment of;,sco.ring wood and brick .treatment - and; other features , in- hospital : design ,.Gomm ,Wright commented that the proposed hospital; plan :cooked very bland 4 Petaluma .Comm ssian.M nu.tes.: ;Apr. l 1 -9, .1477 s, Mr. Rasmussen s :ta -ted. it. that. wi'th..:the fu :tutee widening of° North'' Boulevard ,°:the trees along the roadside : would, 'be removed. Mr, - Cowen questioned 'Condition ,. S2 - , stating ,. that, 'thei r.archltects. l bdilt • many hospital's. He felt the City Coune'il and - the Planni.ng_. .did: not, have the ,ri'ght to specify the - firfish material - - ;the -exterior °..of .a building:..;He' : a= deletion of the following; conditions `Condition, requirement for a;more..elaborate arch-ite.ttural treatment. Condition, 0 5 - - provision for a linear park'. Condition, 116 - the 'requ r;emen_t of the culvera..as . <t is;:,no , =a.- , requirement of ' - Site Design,' but of ,City Staff. Condition 19 the requirement that a:'bicycle path be provided' property. Mr. - Hall stated the Planning :Commission Fins the authority under Site Design - Review. to evaluate a project as to architectural, style and design. Ken°Dickerman, architect, stated they `to 'eli'minate brick arid d"ecorative.items from the exterior wall design as ';they were -' oo heavy and too costly. , 'The, build ing- will >haVe a,deep textured surface and the ° windows w- ll•have. an, effective rhythm., We,-as- architects, are pro- posing a facility that will an asset to the community. - -Comm. Wright stated the building proposed is the cheapest- building that c,ould`be-designed. Th s,design shows no imagination. There a -�no , way - I will vote'.for the des - gn :of this - building :... ® It does not take architect to design• a square box'. - - Mr• Dickerman started. cost : and other factors clearly indicate this is an- appropriate design',' seismic safety is con idered: in. this design. Comm ..He, ad stated more 'des :could .be. added t ' 'the. building. We are respon ble in seeing that the public, gets a- building that would be p`leasin'g' to them, 'with _A l.it.tle - more imagination;. , 'i Mr. Cowen :stated the hosp tala was :on a� strict budget. and_ =d=id not - !see why the °Commission d'emand'ed more decoration .be put on the building. which would" :cost more money. ' Comm Wright commented that an architect knows how-to make a liuild ng�•beautif.ul Arid stay . Within a reasonable cost figure;;, this is an architect s z function. He asked ">if • redwood were added. to the side o'f the bu= ilding would - it - violate �a. safety. measure of the 'State? - John -- Brown; project engineer -,o explained- that :there pi's ;•a = -three -hour fire rating; on the exterior walls: Wood is allowed up:t-orl8 -feet; but is•prohib t ve_on the second floor. A metal trim would be permiss -ible. Comm. Harberson •;stat`ed th*e :hosp tal board. should, ndicat'e if • there 'a cost problem; - Mr : , Di°ckerman "exp,la ned ! f.havl from a dollar standpoint it was ,felt, the design • appropriate and therefore the,-plans - were not changed.' 'Comm' _Popp stated we .should not look,, av A hospital .from thee - outside,. but- - from the hospital care provided�on the-iinside Fred Groverman stated hospital board was concerned about, the pllain appearance °of •the - hospital - building, but the secrets was in the ..land sca in The rhos p g', pital would ,hike to use­ the, money for the inside of the hospital,. A diiscussion was held on the; requirement: of ' a bicycle path and linear park Comm 'Popp stated there would be' the creek, to: protect he {hospital; which would. "tie in with th'e; "otheer. landscaping ;and: did not see a need ,, ;for ,a' bicycle path.' Comm. "Bond asked' if the City- would the linear - parkway as it 'would - be a recreational park. Mr Rasmussen parkway would %maintenance access 5 Petaluma Planning Commission -;Minutes .,, , :April 19, .1.977 - .11 easement or the ;area, ,,abutting., Lynch,, C'reek,.,. ;Comm': :Harberson stated the =log` cal place for == a--bicycle path would ,be: in the ;park- :acr'oss, LpnchE?Greek ;and "separa'tedr from tF e "hospi;tal,,. The,l osprtal;•:should.7_maintain' the.,landscaping =up'' to tlie creek. Comm Bond moved to approve the Site Design, for the- ,P:lanned '`.Unit' ,Developn ent :•with - cond'- i.tions 'of° approval as . recommended by the 'staff and. 'concurred, with %:by the Architectural- and Site! Design:. Rev ew_Commit_tee with. the fohlow'ing changes:: 1.: Delete 'Condit` ion #..2 2 - Condition - #5 be changed to read Landscape plans indicating- the "treatment of .ttie entire' site, ':includ ing .an irrigation system,: hall .be. _ submitted to th'e Planning Directorlor'rev ew and ap,pro al'pr or to issuance . of a buzld'ing 'p'ermi`t,. 3. Delete• bicycle -path and' f.r.om Condition,. #1 -9 (third line)'._` 4. . Delete fir: t,'parig- r - -aph o:f.. Cond tion #,.2G; ,;.;; ;. 5.. ' Add'•Condi't on #22 - Hospital d_ reat onal signs shall be 'at the :rear entrance to the `site and n the `Maria 'Drive / - Eas.t Washington, Street :inter'section Y , ,: = vicinity to direct motoris o use-;Ae `rear entrance to the site , ,via Maria Drive.: Y Pp, : ' •The` :mofi'on :•wa' second 4. b Comm. Po - ' ,AYES._: "4 NOES V. ABSENT Y2: A W-. SANDERSON AND. ' ,, Mr Hall , expla�.ned .the request ;by A TRIPLE "S TIRES E,:I.Q , Aubrey to rezone a roxima el 20'.'acres 1'oca at °the southeast - EVALUAT ION /REZONING° pp y - corner 'of :',Old Redwood : , : Highway a-nd North Md Blvd FROM COUNTY' M- 1.,,to CITY, M L (LIGHT 'from County M 1 -to clty M =L,. A port on .of the site is . . INDUSTRIAL ). /• SITE DESIGN; . propo'sed to be developed' with a warehouse /office _ , .'$ui.ldin 'The - lot REVIEWc g proposed to be created: for Triple . T'res ` :covers two`, and one ha'1f acres -. The Public'Hearing.wa's opened to consider e th Environ- mental )"Impact. Questionnaire .. No comments were offered `fr the 'audience , and the public 'hearing -was closed Comm; Ha_rberson moved to-'d rest the Plann ng :Direc "tor to prepare ah a•_Negative Declaration• :for • the proj`;ect = The motion wa "s!" seconded -- by Comm Daly,. ;.AYES 5 - ". NOES ' - ` 0 ABSENT ... < 2 The­'Public Hear -rig was opened to consider: the - proposed. .,City 'M-. rezoning. -- 'No 'comments - were offered from the audience and. the Public Hearing was closed. Comm.. 'Popp moved "to _recommend approval of the - requested City M L ;rezoning" to the City Council. .The motion was 'seconded by Daly." . AYES' ' S< NOES' '0_ _ SENT 2 T Petaluma4 Planning, - CoTmission.:,.Minute.,s ,,; April 1 'Comm Daly moved to approve the,. site design !. the. osed project with c p ohditidns of concur s pprova al a. recommended!-by- the staff. and, -red by the Au - 7 , ­ -i : . " , . , . _ , Archite ral the-following addition: 9. Trees shall be planted AIong.-the property lines- to u' ��th e -long".- :solid walls: -of the•.-buildihg,. No outdoor storage or - dis - 0, - lay of merchandise_shall,be perm The The -use s hall hall be permitted one - : kI I .. . I ' I � . - - low:' prof He - identi-f, ofily.- :.All. material. shall be native and "'drought - resistance...::.. (Sonoma• County. Planning Department) BARBER SIGN :COMPANY Mr. - Hall .explained. the request , - Signs for-.. (PIC-A"DILLY WOMEN'S- Pic=A­Eiilly Women, 9 Clothing . to allow for a sign CLOTHING) = VARIANCE: :V'ariafice for the installation of a sign having the total dimensions .:of 2-l/2' to - be 'located flat against the!'shiniled portion of the wall above the , marquee-of the building•'lotated- in the Washington°-.Square, Shopping: - Center. the sign - prO I grAm'jor the Washington. -Sq'ua-re ;requires - all signs-to be located Und er the marquee-,, where,: a.'marquee. 6xists. signs" to be'cannister type signsl not exceed ing,_16-f ee t in l ength x 2 -1 /:21' f ee t in width. The' Public Hearing to consider the. V`ar-iance application of Barber Sign Company,. was opened Mark reason.for;the'variance request was.-so - 1 that th 6 sign would be visible! from''the entraftce-ta.,the shopping center. The proposed' mounted above, the marquee would-be more readily : visible and attract more ­business. Mr. Hal stated ,-. that° , ,even , with a-conforming sign it should be feasike- to see- the sign f,rom'McDowe' Since the store can be `identified McDowell ,Blvd,., a precedence?,coul& be established -- if a variance . is granted ­f o . "r a.n The Public 'Hearing was closed. Comm. Daly moved to den y •.the. yar-i�ance f-findings indicated in staff report - ,n'(jt be made. .4'fi& motion was by - Comm,. Bond. AYES, 5 NOES' ABSENT 2 LAWRENCEI A JONAS- Mr. -Hall explained the ence to - EVALUATION/ prezon,e- approximately -T.3 acres-lopated at the north- PREZONING FROM -`COUNTY - west " corner of I Street and Sunnys'lope Road from County A T - 0 �C ­ I T Y -1-10 A. " t o City o f Pe"taluma R 10 - .000- The­proposed pre- 1� zoning:-de;signation would,.,_pr the - development of si ngle family residences. on 10,000 .square foot minimum - sized l-dt_*s--.-- At this - , density, - the s . fte tould developed with ap-pr6ki units. The -Pub Irn'pact Questionnaire was ­-, . opened. 1tearing to consider the' Envi 1 - Ms H61en­King, 9'uT of e progerty. to ''the north of .-the-property that when tthe °`Westridge' Subdivision - -.was..pK(�p6sed, owners were pro'ppr,:t y -. to d, ., , :She hoped , the div1sioh`.wb:Lil.d high-�class ,` 6ih6s­ be'�, situated, on larger , lots: :She actual cas&, 'The - 'Sonoma , County:­Mas ter Plan adop ted yin 195,5 ­showed a road from­.Sunnys Road to -Sunnyslope` Avenue - and she h this plan r would" I s ing e; ishe M - K' did not 'object :', to. proposed u , . d z_ �ofiimb rrezoning;, t ' t �d I d " ­b J ` `-_ ' 'pr6perty. ' ject t any c ommercial use o f :the Mr. Jonas stated 'PetA 19-'1977.= . he - would like, to see- -this land.- dev6lop'ed but had- I - `land . 'He: p to sell was _strongly­opposed-.to anyone' the-- -4 zoning_fib_m,. _ to another. zoning 9f,, higher" densitY - :1 : closed. I- - Mr. -- Ha:l ,,, l ; ., of * IsCln siridll ranches - This p - wou1 - d - -no­t - ,- �; �, be c4 upw into - 10, 00&.s'quare foot lots,. B P ' ut ting_ too 'e hom s!- it:­would raise havoc part - i-culariy.'t6 , .-'T-hbmpson Creek-. - ''Mr' Jonas ex pl, ii that 1/2 of the property would - -be R-1,10'-i000 .§4. ft. - and the' 1/2 would be one acre - - parcels,. Comm,. -- Harber - sbn moved, to direct- the - ?,,Ianni jz.;-.DIrec.tor_ to prepare. and. -;post a- - Negative - * Declaration for the project based on the four f-indingp­,61 staff report. Th'e- motion - was second6d­by Comm. Daly. WktS NOES 0 ABSENT 2 The 'Public -Hearing was opened to - consider the .proposed R-1-10,000,prezonixrg,_. No comments. were offered from audience and the Public Hearing :was .closed. n ­�s c Comm. moved to recommend appoval r of the , requested R=1- 10! pXezoning . to the Council.. The motion- was seconded .by Comm,. Daly,. AYES 5 NOES "-ABSENT 2 HAROLD 0 ... '.MET FOR Mr Hall explained 'i t� quos, -by"iHar6ld Me tcilfe for ME T CAL PE MA'CHINE, SHOP- Metcal -fe Machi irfe Shop for a propose madhine'shop ,EVALUATION= / �.to. be. located- on 'the east side -, G - Street betw'een. USE :PERMIT /VARIANCE/ 'First An& Second _S­treets.' '- The p' ropdt'ed .5,000 sq. ft - industrial - building would cover ; ld SITE` DESIGN- about 50%. of. the clot. The: front and rear setbacks are approximately 50-feet- each,,• :however,, 't.fiO� ,setback's -of zero feet and three feet do not meet'the minimum setback require --s­ 'The 'industrial requirement s:° will have a 14-fo6t high concrete b lock wall along the - ,east property line which will face the single - family residential ng And dwelling yard of 'this aw'ell'ing4._ The Hearin g consider the. Environmental Im p act Questionnaire was 'opened. Mary higelhart; A resident on 2nd, 'Stx"eet, -stated' if this project­is- allowed: she would have 66 sell her property. 'Sh' -would have rouble'with TV and the, project - wo - uld' create a"lot of d ust. Mr, Haro : Metcalfe -stated -no dust or noise would- be geh6rated" f rom the build ir' i' - -- The 5 . 01 x' 100' 'size -;building would . suit. their needs in 'this parti ­ cu a 1 r type: usifiess and with - :­50� foot 'setback there would be light and exposure f or' the adjoining :homes ; nee -- the: buil.din g. and the' and it will be- an IiApry ,oement 'to -, the area. . ' y_ Larr%Metcalf e stited a realtor�;told that the adjoining properties Were up for A letter , Victor of 1 421 Petaltima :Blvd,. So.. was 'in favor - , the , proposal. A petit - ion 'received asked iha-t­tfie , va , variance 4' -That - PAbllc­-Hearing was closed. Comm, - Po p S dt ed this -is an 'industrial :-' area �', and .-there, are homes.. also . ,•-in -- the;--area property -t­ ' - 'owned -.by-permanent " residents, . Mr.i 'Hall st&ted­this is a tran ...itional-area-. . Howev : er- people�-, --who, in :th6 �rea shoxiid 8 Petalu- ma. Minu.tes._- . April .19_,. 1977 _ 1 16 Comm Popp moved to. direct the Planning. Director.. to 'prepare and post `a . Nega:tive Declaration for the project. _ .The motion died for the lack of a.second. Com Harberson moved, that a 1mited Environmental. Impact. Report.be required the project to include traff -ic, noise-,dust and.:concern•for further industrial transition of the area. — ' Tli'e motion was , seconded by Comm. Daly. 1 AYES 4 NOES 1 ABSENT 2. AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCEt It was the general consensus that this item be placed on the May 10 Agenda. CONVENIENCE MARKETS AND FAST -FOOD This item will•be handled. when.time,ppermits. RESTAURANTS PROPOSED 'ZONIN.G ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS: .1 ADJOURNMENT: There being no , further °business, the - meeting adJ:ourned at 12:05 a.m. Attest: 9