CITY
OF WEED PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR
MEETING
NOVEMBER
1, 2000
The
Planning Commission of the City of Weed held a regular meeting on Wednesday,
November 1, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall.
Chairman
Virgil Tuman called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Present, in addition to Chairman Tuman were
Commissioners Richard Acquistapace, Harold Baltar, Jack Colombana, and Jess
Gonzales. Also present were City
Administrator Earl Wilson and Planning Commission Secretary Deborah Salvestrin.
Commissioners
Candace Dillingham and Karen Heiser were absent.
Chairman
Tuman invited comments and/or questions from the audience, and noted that no
action could be taken by the Commission except to set the matter presented for
the next regular Commission meeting.
Chairman
Tuman called for Commissioners to declare conflicts of interest on any item on
this agenda. There were none.
A. Use Permit:
CalNorth Cellular antenna site:
The Commission will consider expanding an existing use permit for
“co-location” of a communications building on CalNorth’s tower site. (Continued from October 4, 2000) City Administrator Wilson reviewed that
the Commission, at the last regular meeting, requested interpretation of zoning
ordinances with reference to the application to co-locate a new antenna on the
existing CalNorth tower. Mr. Wilson
also reviewed that the Planning Commission determined that the antennas to be
added to the tower did not require modification of the use permit but that the
addition of a building required further staff review. Mr. Wilson stated that the installation of another building is an
enlargement of an existing use and not a change of use, and recommended the
permit be amended to allow the additional construction of a building (8’ x
14’5”) subject to an approved plot plan, and subject to a one-year review.
Council
Member Baltar moved, seconded by Council Member Acquistapace, to amend the use
permit to allow the additional building sized 8’ x 14’5” to support the
co-location of an antenna, that the use shall be in accordance with an approved
plot plan, and subject to the condition that the use permit will be reviewed in
one year.
AYES: Commissioners Acquistapace, Baltar,
Colombana, and Gonzales
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Dillingham and Heiser
B. Use and Sign permit -- Alpine Veterinary,
181 Main Street: Planning Commission
will consider a use permit for a small animal veterinary clinic inside a
building, and a painted plywood sign to be flush mounted on the building. City Administrator Wilson reported receipt
of application for use permit for a veterinary hospital to be located at 181
Main Street. Mr. Wilson reviewed that
the Zoning Ordinance text was amended to provide for this type of use in the
C-1 zone with a use permit. Mr. Wilson
stated the business will be operated entirely within an existing building, and
is expected to be compatible with the surrounding area for noise. Mr. Wilson added the project is found to be
categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act as a Class
I exemption under Section 15301 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act, and a Notice of Exemption will be
prepared.
The
proposal complies with City codes and requirements and the staff suggests
conditional approval as requested in the application, and with the same
conditions as approved with the previous use permit with regard to future noise
issues.
Chairman
Tuman asked for comments and/or questions in support of the application. Dr. Grace Roberts appeared before the
Commission and stated she plans to purchase the building at 181 Main Street and
move her practice from 153 Main Street where she has an existing use permit for
a small animal veterinary clinic. Dr.
Roberts added that a painted plywood advertising sign would be flush mounted on
the building
Chairman
Tuman asked for comments and/or questions in opposition to the application for
use permit. There were none. Chairman Tuman asked for Commission comments
and/or questions. There being none, the Commission finds the establishment,
maintenance and operation of the use applied for will, under the circumstances
of the particular case, not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals,
comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such proposed use, and it will not be injurious or detrimental
to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the
city.
Commissioner
Gonzales then moved, seconded by Commissioner Baltar, approval of the use
permit subject to the following Notations and Conditions, and approval of the
sign permit with the accompanying conditions:
If an application is made for a permit for any
building or structure modifications, said application shall be accompanied by
architectural drawings or sketches, showing the elevations of the proposed
building or structure and site plans showing the proposed landscape or other
treatment of the grounds around such building or structure. Such drawings, sketches, and site plans
shall be considered by the Planning Commission in an endeavor to provide that
the architectural and general appearance of such buildings or structures and
grounds to be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and such as not
to be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the City, or to
impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood.
All landscaped areas and boxes shall be
maintained.
Section 18.32.120 of the Weed Municipal Code
provides an appeal procedure in the event the applicant or any other person is
not satisfied with the action of the planning commission.
1. Prior to any use of the project site or
business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the City planner.
2. Occupancy of the facility shall not commence
until such time as all Uniform Building Code regulations have been complied
with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall
be submitted to the Fire Department to show compliance.
3. All signs are subject to City approval and
may require either a building or sign permit or both.
4. The permit shall be reviewed in one year for
continuation, with or without conditions.
Sign Permit
Conditions
1. All signs for business owners who go out of
business, or discontinue the particular line of business or service advertised
in the sign, shall be dismantled and removed within thirty days of such going
out of business or service, by the owner of the building or property. In case of the failure of the owner to do
so, the city will cause such sign to be dismantled and removed, and the cost of
this shall be borne by the owner of the building or property.
2. Outdoor advertising structure or sign shall
not display or makes use of the words "stop", "danger", or
any other word, phrase, symbol or character in such a manner as to interfere
with, mislead or confuse traffic.
3. Signs shall not have red, green or amber
lights that could be confused with traffic signals.
4. The city council is authorized and empowered
to revoke any permit issued by the city administrator or his duly authorized agents,
or the planning commission upon failure of the holder to comply with any of the
provisions of this section. Revocation
proceedings shall be conducted as detailed in Sections 18.32.140 and 18.32.150.
5. Signs shall be suspended so as to leave a clearance
of at least ten feet perpendicularly above all sidewalks, and a clearance of at
least fourteen feet perpendicularly above all driveways, and shall not extend
beyond a point of two feet inside the outer or curb line of the sidewalk;
provided, however, that no such sign shall be suspended at such a height so as
to interfere with the illumination from street lights erected and maintained by
the city.
6. All signs shall be maintained in good repair
and have a neat appearance.
7. It shall be the responsibility of the sign
owner to clean up any and all debris resulting from a failure of a sign.
8. Sign permits shall not be issued until
fifteen days have elapsed from the granting thereof, and in case an appeal is
filed from the planning commission decision thereon shall not be issued until
decision has been made by the city council on such appeal.
9. Sign permits shall not have any force and
effect until the permittee acknowledges receipt thereof and acceptance of any
conditions thereto.
10. After the required 15-day waiting period, a
building permit must be obtained prior to installation. Engineering for the wind-loading requirement
may be required as determined by the building inspector.
AYES: Commissioners Acquistapace, Baltar,
Colombana, and Gonzales
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Dillingham and Heiser
C. Use Permit for off-site advertising sign --
Steve Anderson, 800 Shastina Drive:
Planning Commission will consider an application for permit for one 30’
x 24’ x 45’ back-to-back off-site freeway display sign. City Administrator Wilson reported receipt
of application for use permit for off-site advertising sign structure
containing approximately 1,440 square feet of advertising space on four faces
(2 faces back-to-back with 2 faces each), to be located at 800 Shastina
Drive.
Mr.
Wilson reviewed the intent of the sign committee during the development of the
sign ordinance amendment that now permits off-site advertising, and the
requirements of the new ordinance. Mr.
Wilson reported the hearing notice has been advertised and notices mailed to
the property owners as required by law.
Mr.
Wilson discussed design of the proposed sign noting that the applicant, in his
discussions with the community, indicated he would include a concept that used
the theme of the community arch on the upper billboard to get away from the
typical billboard approach and pointed out, however, this application uses a
typical billboard approach that differs in the applicant’s original concept
expected by the community.
Chairman
Tuman declared the hearing open and Steve Anderson, applicant, came before the
Commission to discuss his application.
Mr. Anderson stated that while previous concepts for off-site
advertising had been submitted, this application meets the criteria of the new
ordinance.
Commissioner
Heiser arrived at 7:29 p.m., apologized for being tardy, and assumed her seat
on the dais.
Mr.
Anderson continued that with regard to design, he originally offered to donate
free advertising space to a local non-profit entity but the offer was not
accepted. With regard to location, Mr.
Anderson requested approval of the northern most location claiming he didn’t
feel it ethical for the City to compete for advertising on City property. With regard to lighting, Mr. Anderson said
it would not be cost effective to install lighting that may have to be changed
in one year.
Chairman
Tuman asked for other comments and/or questions in support of the application. Roger Ward, representing Siskiyou
Development, stated they have contracted with Mr. Anderson for advertising
space, asked for Commission approval, and stated he doesn’t think its right for
the City to compete with private enterprise for advertising space.
Joe
Ganim stated that he owns property directly behind Mr. Anderson’s and has no
objection to the application as long as the sign is located at the northern
site because the southern site would have an impact on his development.
Chairman
Tuman asked for comments and/or questions in opposition to the
application. There being none, the
hearing was closed and Chairman Tuman asked for Commission comments and/or
questions noting that he has not had a chance to digest all the information and
attachments to the application and staff report. Commissioner Baltar concurred.
Commissioner
Acquistapace asked the Commission not to hold up the project as Steve Anderson
has complied with ordinance requirements.
Commissioner
Heiser concurred with prior comments regarding the City competing with private
enterprise.
Commissioner
Baltar suggested further negotiation between the City and Mr. Anderson
regarding the sign site.
Commissioner
Gonzales moved, seconded by Commissioner Heiser, that action be continued to a
special meeting for the purpose of obtaining further information.
AYES: Commissioners Acquistapace, Baltar,
Colombana, Gonzales, and Heiser
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Dillingham
Commissioners
agreed to schedule the meeting for November 8, 2000, at 7:00 p.m.
Commissioner
Baltar questioned the status of the railroad crossing repair work, and
Commissioner Heiser again apologized for being tardy noting that she had been
at work. Chairman Tuman encouraged
Commissioners to study agenda materials carefully before the next meeting.
Council
Member Gonzales moved adjournment and Council Member Baltar seconded the
motion.
AYES: Commissioners Acquistapace, Baltar,
Colombana, Gonzales, and Heiser
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Dillingham
MEETING
ADJOURNED AT 7:55 P.M.