HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/08/1999City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 8, 1999 .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
CITE' OF PETAI.,UMA, CA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 8, 1999, 7:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY HALL, 11 ENGLISH STREET
PETALUMA, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498
E -Mail planning @ci.petaluma ca us
Web Page http: / /www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Bennett *, Broad, Feibusch, Glass, Healy
Absent: Vieler
* Chairperson
Staff: Vincent C. Smith aicp, Interim Planning Director
Mabel Bialik, Associate Planner
Irene Borba, Assistant Planner
*Chairperson
ROLL CALL.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of May 11, 1999 were approved as printed.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Updated Project Log was distributed.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: None.
CORRESPONDENCE: Letters from Arthur Hagopian and Attorney Robert Oliker
regarding Ferrin project.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS:
PUBLIC HEARING:
I. FERRIN; 4 -LOT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AMENDMENT LOCATED
AT 2430, 2432 AND 2494 "1" STREET.
Appeal of a determination by the Planning Director that the proposed project has
not been approved by operation of law and that a new Initial Study and Negative
Declaration is necessary.
Assistant Planner Borba presented the staff report.
1
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 8, 1999
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Commissioner Healy - Clarified that the Planning Commission is just looking at a
determination of this appeal, not merits of the project.
Commissioner Bennett - Reiterated Commissioner Healy's statement.
Neil Sorensen - Attorney for applicant - Grant the appeal, find that the Tentative Map is
approved by operation of law; this project is an amendment of an already approved
Tentative Map; the City is not party to any pending law suit as discribed in Mr. Oliker's
communication; this project has been approved; all requirements have been met; staff
disputes whether there was a complete application and whether there was a proper
environmental review; the notice stated that there would be no further environmental
review; this amendment request is very minor in nature; project engineer states that there
will be less paving with the new proposal; the application approved itself before the
environmental review (Initial Study) was distributed; no new application was submitted in
December; environmental review was complete (in our opinion) November of 1998;
disputed three reasons given by staff for denying the appeal; neighborhood objections
were being made since July of 1998; objections are not new; same points are made on the
petitions; look at CEQA sections, what is the substantial change that occurred in
November of 1998? No substantial changes have occurred.
Interim Planning Director Smith Mr. Sorensen stated that the project was deemed
complete in November of 1998; the project was still evolving during this time; this is a
new Tentative Parcel Map, not a revision; on -going revisions of circulation elements
continue; City is lead agency in determining if a project is exempt from CEQA; this project
probably should have been taken directly to Planning Commission without trying to
process administratively; neighborhood identified environmental concerns during review
period.
Commissioner Glass - Concerns that one of the notifications was only done verbally, not
in writing.
Interim Planning Director Smith - Much information is given verbally in good faith.
Paul Allen - 2432 I Street (Applicant's son) - Feels the project is exempt from CEQA per
the December 23, 1998 CEQA revision concerning in -fill project exemptions; lead agency
(City) responsible for determining if environmental review is necessary; Subdivision
Ordinance modification not necessary.
Interim Planning Director Smith - Issue of Subdivision Ordinance Modification is not
under discussion tonight; City of Petaluma is lead agency in determining whether project
exempt, this project is not exempt.
Paul Allen - Draft Initial Study does not indicate any substantial adverse environmental
effects will be created; Planning Commission needs to determine whether neighborhood
letters constitute substantial evidence; that evidence has not been provided; some
(Petaluma) Ordinances conflict with CEQA; emergency access is core issue here tonight;
mitigation measures must be proportional to proposal; City may not have known that this
type of project would fall under the new CEQA Categorical Exemption.
2
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 8, 1999
1 Interim Planning Director Smith - Clearly staff determined the need for an Initial Study
2 because of significant environmental effects; read Section 15064(b -c) which defines
3 significant effects..
4 Paul Allen - Which concerns by neighborhood are considered significant - would like to
5 have a list; Petaluma Ordinances and CEQA are at odds; previous Planning Director was
6 in charge in November, in early December (1 st), a meeting was set with Pamela Tuft (she
7 did not attend, but Mr. Smith did); tone of meeting was that project was not approved
8 because of objections of neighbors; no new Initial Study was mentioned at that meeting;
9 Draft Initial Study was provided to applicant on January 13, 1999.
to Interim Planning Director Smith - Prior to December 1 meeting and at the meeting, the
11 applicant was made aware that a new Initial Study was necessary.
12 Neil Sorensen - Applicant was not informed at December 1 meeting that a new Initial
13 Study was necessary.
14 Jani Walker - 2496 Sunset Terrace - Environmental effects are significant; City acted
15 correctly in determining neighbors' concerns are significant; new information was supplied
16 in November 13, 1998 letter from neighbors - proposed turn- around would have potential
17 to cause damage to her property; all neighbors have concerns regarding upkeep of private
18 roads - staff acted correctly in not approving project administratively; City made Mrs.
19 Allen very aware of process; January 27, 1999 letter from the applicant states she knows
20 of and is working with City staff on the Initial Study; extensive grading and excavation
21 would be required with installation of turn - around, narrow part of street would become
22 two -way (there is not enough room); applicant does not want to show any consideration
23 to existing neighbors; concerns with future development, same concerns with Westridge
24 Knolls project; deny appeal, staff action is correct.
25 Walt Hopkins - 3490 Sunset Terrace - Significant problems with this project; no one
26 objected to original Ferrin plan, has been told that private road cannot be used; 98% of
27 neighbors have concerns (in writing).
28 Mr. Pelton - 2510 Sunset Terrace - Lived in area 43 years (even before Mrs. Ferrin);
29 consider our letters; neighbors did not object to original proposal; fire concerns (now 4
30 1/2 minutes response time); with proposal, fire truck would not be able to turn around;
31 trees are being damaged; there are already drainage /runoff problems now would like to
32 see cuts /grading proposed; if a hammerhead is approved as proposed a "fifth- wheel)
33 would not be able to make it up to his house with road access cut off as proposed; traffic
34 would double on Sunset Terrace; existing storm drain is not adequate; deny appeal.
35 Mr. Hagopian - 34 Laurel - Owns two parcels - concerns about possible flooding, storm
36 drain not adequate; against closing road between Ferrin and Sunset Terrace; concur with
37 Planning staff on denying appeal.
38 Diane Allen - Applicant - Understands neighborhood frustration; original proposal three
39 years ago was to subdivide lots; access change came about because original road proposed
40 was unsafe, expensive to build; City Engineer Craig Spaulding said hammerheads would
41 probably be ok with City; has tried to work with the City cooperatively, Irene Borba has
42 been very helpful; on November 21, 1998, Irene Borba stated that Pamela Tuft and Vin
43 Smith said the November 1997 Tentative Map should probably be recorded; was informed
44 on November 23, 1998 that the project would go to Planning Commission; why does this
45 process take three years? New proposal will result in a safer and better project.
3
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 8, 1999
1 Jani Walker - Mrs. Ferrin left configuration of the neighborhood intact; at a September,
2 1998 neighborhood meeting with Mrs. Allen, she stated that she did not need to share
3 information with the neighborhood; access to her (Walker) house would be eliminated
4 with new proposal.
5
6 The public hearing was closed.
7
8 Commissioner Healy - Prepared to deny this appeal; appeal is based on an incomplete
9 understanding of CEQA; neighborhood concerns underscore significant changes to
10 proposal.
11 Commissioner Glass - Encourages all correspondence to be in writing in the future;
12 material changes would occur with this proposal; does not want to walk away from
13 opinion of City Attorney and Planning Director.
14 Commissioner Broad - Concurs with other Commissioners; believes appeal should be
15 denied; nothing conclusive showing any improper processing of application; no written
16 objections from applicant, staff acted reasonably.
17 Commissioner Feibusch - Agrees with other Commissioners; considers neighborhood
18 concerns valid and significant; will vote to deny appeal.
19 Commissioner Barrett - Listened to neighborhood concerns; concurs with other
20 Commissioners; deny appeal.
21 Chairperson Bennett - Step back and look at sense of what is right; original map could
22 be recorded; staff acted responsibly; tension between in -fill and existing neighbors; fairness
23 issue - this project will now go through public hearing process before Planning
24 Commission.
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Feibusch and seconded by Commissioner Broad to
27 deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Director's determination that the Ferrin Tentative
28 Parcel Map is not deemed approved by operation of law under the Subdivision Map Act,
29 and /or the Permit Streamlining Act and to direct staff to proceed with the Initial Study
30 based on the finding listed below:
31
32 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
33 Commissioner Broad: Yes
34 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
35 Commissioner Glass: Yes
36 Commissioner Healy: Yes
37 Commissioner Vieler: Absent
38 Chairperson Bennett: Yes
39
40 Finding
41
42 1. That concerns raised by the public regarding potential environmental impacts
43 related to the construction of two new hammerhead turn - arounds warrants the
44 preparation of an Initial Study, and therefore, the project is not categorically
45 exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
46
4
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 8, 1999
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
II. WILDCAT UNDERGROUND AND ENGINEERING, 450 LAKEVILLE
STREET; AP NO. 007 - 171 -029.
Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to authorize the open storage of
vehicles and equipment for the entire 0.92 acre parcel.
Interim Planning Director Smith presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Catherine Stallman - Pacific Coast Cutters (co- applicant) - Any questions?
Commissioner Barrett - How would landscaping be maintained?
Lisa Stewart - Wildcat Engineering - Would be happy to install drip system; will install all
trees and shrubs shown on plans and will make sure they are maintained.
Commissioner Broad - Add a condition requiring in- ground drip irrigation.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Broad and seconded by Commissioner Barrett to
approve a Conditional Use Permit to authorize the establishment of an open storage yard
for vehicles and equipment based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions
listed in the staff report.
Conunissioner Barrett: Yes
Commissioner Broad: Yes
Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
Commissioner Glass: Yes
Commissioner, Healy: Yes
Commissioner Vieler: Absent
Chairperson Bennett: Yes
Finding s:
1. This project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Section 15303, Class 3.
2. The proposed fenced open storage area, as conditioned to address setback and
height of the fence, landscaping and use, will conform to the requirements and the
intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan.
3. The proposed fenced open storage area will not constitute a nuisance or be
detrimental to the public welfare of the community, as conditions have been
imposed regulating the uses allowed in the open storage area.
R
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 8, 1999
1 4. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List
2 compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government
3 Code.
4
5 5. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public
6 review at the City of Petaluma Planning Department, City Hall, 11 English Street,
7 Petaluma, California.
8
9 Conditions
10
11 1. The open storage area shall be used exclusively for the storage of company
12 vehicles and equipment. Any expansion of the use of the property to include
13 employee or customer parking shall require Site Plan and Architectural Review.
14
15 2. Perimeter fencing consisting of a 6'0" tall chain link with metal slats painted an
16 earthtone color shall be installed consistent with Attachment 2 prior to the
17 commencement of the use. The height of the fence shall be measured from ground
18 elevation outside of the fenced area. A fence permit shall be required from the
19 Planning Department before the fence may be erected. One foot of barbed wire
20 shall be permitted.
21
22 3. Landscaping shall be installed in the 20' -0" front yard setback, and shall include a
23 variety of groundcover, shrubs and trees subject to staff review and approval. In-
24 ground drip irrigation shall be provided and maintained. A landscape plan shall
25 be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval and all landscaping
26 shall be installed prior to the commencement of the use.
27
28 4. This Conditional Use Permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for
29 review at any time due to complaints regarding lack of compliance with conditions
30 of approval, traffic congestion, noise generation, or other adverse operating
31 characteristics. At such time the Commission may revoke the Conditional Use
32 Permit or add /modify conditions of approval.
33
34 5. Given the entryway status of this property, this Use Permit shall be for a term of
35 five years (June 8, 2004) subject to renewal upon administrative review by the
36 Planning Director at the end of the time period. All tenants utilizing the property
37 at that time shall be required to notify the Planning Department of their status by
38 May 1, 2004.
39
40
41 III. DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES.
42
43 Consideration of the Petaluma Historic Commercial District Design Guidelines,
44 Amendments to Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance, a Rezoning to apply an
.3
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 8, 1999
1 Historic District Overlay to the historic downtown, and a Negative Declaration for
2 a recommendation on adoption to the City Council.
3
4 Associate Planner Bialik presented the staff report. Asked for direction regaarding
5 expanding size of the Historic SPARC Committee from seven members to eight.
6
7 Commissioner Healy abstained (owns property within 300 feet of historic district).
8
9 The public hearing was opened.
10
11 SPEAKERS:
12
13 Commissioner Glass - Believes that seven member Historic SPARC Committee is
14 adequate and preferable, avoids potential problem of tie votes.
15 Commissioner Broad - Question regarding signs that appear on or in windows - are they
16 regulated?
17 Associate Planner Bialik - It's already included in the Guidelines. Can add regulation
18 that signs cannot be hung inside such that they are visible from the windows.
19 Chairperson Bennett - Any problems /concerns from property owners in the district?
20 Associate Planner Bialik - No negative comments were received.
21 Chairperson Bennett - Commended staff on a remarkable document - glad there has
22 been positive response.
23 Commissioner Feibusch - Well done document; long time in coming; incredible
24 information contained here; odd number of members preferable - no additional
25 membership necessary.
26 Chairperson Bennett - Seven members seem to work well; perhaps downtown property
27 owner could be a member.
28
29 The public hearing was closed.
30
31 A motion was made by Commissioner Feibusch and seconded by Commissioner Glass to
32 recommend to the City Council the adoption of a Negative Declaration, approval of
33 rezoning to apply an Historic District Overlay to the historic downtown and adopt the
34 Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Article 17, and adopt the Petaluma Historic
35 Commercial District Design Guidelines with the added recommendation that Historic
36 SPARC Committee consist of seven members, based on the following findings:
37
38 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
39 Commissioner Broad: Yes
40 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
41 Commissioner Glass: Yes
42 Commissioner Healy: Abstain
43 Commissioner Vieler: Absent
44 Chairperson Bennett: Yes
45
46
7
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 8, 1999
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Negative Declaration
1. That pursuant to Article 6, Negative Declaration Proces
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the requiren
been satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Stu(
Declaration is appropriate to the project.
, of the California
-Ints of CEQA have
y, and a Negative
2. That no development projects are proposed with this project. Therefore, based
upon the Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that the project would have
a significant effect on the environment.
3. That the project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined
in the Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, and is exempt from
Fish and Game filing fees because the subject area is a fully developed commercial
district and no projects are proposed at this time.
4. That the project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List
compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government
Code.
5. That the Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and
considered public comments before making a recommendation on the project.
6. That the record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public
review at the City of Petaluma Planning Department, City Hall, 11 English Street,
Petaluma, California.
Rezoning to Apply an Historic Overlay Zoning District to the Downtown Area and
Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Article 17. Preservation of Cultural and Historic
Environment:
1. That the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in
the best interests of the City, and will be in keeping with the general intent and
spirit of the zoning regulations of the City and with the General Plan.
2. That the application of the Historic Overlay District recognizes the importance of
the downtown area to Petaluma's history and development, and that preserving the
downtown's historic character, manifested through the architecture of its buildings,
benefits both the business community and the citizens of the City.
3. That the application of the Historic Overlay District is consistent with Section 17-
401.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which states that the City Council may designate
"one or more areas containing a number of structures having special character or
8
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 8, 1999
1 special historical architectural or aesthetic interesting values, and constituting
2 distinct sections of the City, as historic districts."
3
4 4. That the Petaluma Historic Commercial District Design Guidelines are intended to
5 apply to projects in the Historic Overlay District, and will provide direction to
6 property and business owners in the downtown on appropriate methods by which
7 to rehabilitate, remodel, or alter the exterior of their structures and the streetscape,
8 which will help to preserve the historic character of the downtown.
9
to 5. That the proposed amendments to Article 17 will improve and clarify the review
11 and approval procedures for projects in the Historic Overlay District.
12
13 Petaluma Historic Commercial District Design Guidelines:
14
15 1. That the Design Guidelines shall apply to all properties within the Historic Overlay
16 District, as identified on the Location Map included within the Planning
17 Commission staff report, dated June 8, 1999.
18
19 2. That the project area shall, by separate action of the City Council, be rezoned to
20 apply an Historic Overlay District, whereby the provisions of Article 17,
21 Preservation of the Historic and Cultural Environment, of the Zoning Ordinance,
22 shall also apply.
23
24 3. That the Design Guidelines will provide direction to property and business owners
25 on appropriate and recommended methods and procedures when rehabilitating,
26 remodeling, or altering their buildings in the downtown.
27
28 4. That the Design Guidelines will implement the General Plan, specifically Policy 16
29 of the Land Use Element, which states that future Central Business District
30 development shall respect and be compatible with the existing scale and historic
31 and architectural character of the downtown; and Policy 19, which states that the
32 City shall encourage owners of downtown buildings to improve building exteriors
33 consistent with the historic and visual character of the downtown.
34
35 5. That it is the intent of the Design Guidelines to ensure that the historic character of
36 the downtown is preserved to the benefit of the citizens of Petaluma, and that the
37 adoption of the Guidelines is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning
38 Ordinance.
39
40
41 IV. LIAISON REPORTS.
42
43 City Council Commissioner Healy - Joint meeting with School Board
44 - discussed School District hopes of building a replacement Jr. High on
9
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 8, 1999
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Riesling; Joint meeting with Novato City Council - discussed transportation
issues
SPARC - Commissioner Feibusch - Approved PEP Edith project.
Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee - Commissioner Broad -
Working through Draft Bicycle Plan.
Tree Advisory Committee - Commissioner Barrett - Planted tree at
Penngrove School (winners of Arbor Day contest); looking for new
projects.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:43 PM
10