Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/22/1999City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 �Q.LU a � CITY OF PETALUMA, CA I85$ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 22, 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, Broad, Feibusch, Glass, Healy, Vieler (left prior to Item V). Absent: Bennett* * Chairperson Staff Vincent C. Smith Aicp, Interim Planning Director Bonne Gaebler, Housing Administrator Gene Beatty, Assistant City Manager Mabel Bialik, Associate Planner Elizabeth Dunn aicr, Assistant Planner *Chairperson ROLL CALL. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of June 8, 1999 were approved with a clarification to page 7, line 18. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Distributed updated project log. COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: None. CORRESPONDENCE: Memo from staff regarding Sprint antennas on Petaluma Hotel; response to Ridgeview Heights Subdivision staff report from Steve Buckley. APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read. LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda. 1 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARING: I. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) PLAN AMENDMENT. Amend the boundaries of the CBD Project Area and adopt the Amended Preliminary Plan. Assistant City Manager Gene Beatty presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Libby Siefel (Siefel Associates, Consultant) - Described proposal; history of plan; description of proposed plan boundaries; described process of plan amendment; 45 -year time -frame; defined preliminary plan requirements; Redevelopment Plan requirements; goals of CBD Redevelopment Plan. Commissioner Feibusch - Any pros or cons for the residences one block west of Petaluma Boulevard? Libby Siefel - Could participate in some programs, rehabilitative programs; from a planning perspective, it is better to be in a district, helps property values in the long run; many homes in area are being used for commercial uses; on the negative side, power of imminent domain could apply (Council has no plans for this regarding residential property, possibility on commercial property). Commissioner Healy - Could it be added that power of imminent domain could not be used over residential properties? Libby Siefel - Yes, that could be specified. Commissioner Healy - Is this the only process that is allowed to make this. type of amendment? Libby Siefel - Yes, this would be the process. Commissioner Healy - Would it be possible to add another area? Libby Siefel - Yes, the area can be amended /enlarged through City Council, then back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Healy - Asked that an area bounded by Washington Street, Howard Street, Western Avenue and Liberty Street be considered to be added to boundaries of CBD Project Area. Gene Beatty - There was no consideration of looking at the existing boundary of CBD area during workshops; if Planning Commission/Redevelopment Commission is interested in looking at additional areas, it could be looked at, but there has been no previous discussion to date. Commissioner Glass - Emphasis on tax base /economics; economic benefit must be proven for bond issuance. Commissioner Vieler - Currently two redevelopment districts in Petaluma, what re economic advantages? Where would funds come from? 2 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 Libby Siefel - Funds would come from within the area. Commissioner Vieler - Why are we adding this to this district? How can this add funds? Libby Siefel - Incremental growth captured from new growth that could occur; infrastructure improvements could occur; public improvements can occur; PCD at maximum time limits; CBD can benefit by adding ten years to. time limits; always amend existing plan - more flexibility, can move monies back and forth. Commissioner Vieler - Tied to CPSP, but boundaries are not the same; no advantage to making these two districts into one? Libby Siefel - Can not change time limits; existing time limits started in 1976; PCD also in another set of time limits; from added area, 20 more years will be captured. Commissioner Glass - Incremental revenue description. Commissioner Vieler - Different criteria taking place with this amendment; protective of area along Petaluma Blvd. north; that area will not be left out? Commissioner Healy - Can other areas be added later? Libby Siefel - If you would like to add an area, it should probably be done now; if you are interested in adding this area, field work needs to be done and run through City Council. Commissioner Healy - Would like to go through that process. Commissioner Barrett - Why wouldn't you add one lot deep across Howard Street? Commissioner Healy That area is mostly residential and not a gateway to the City. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Healy - Would like to add this area; staff and consultant should look at the area, can it be added under State Law, if not, bring findings back here. Gene Beatty - If Planning Commission basically is in support of this, a motion could be made to recommend approval with an addition specifying this area be surveyed by the consultant to determine feasibility of making this addition. Commissioner Glass - Make this. most effective for the City; make sure addition of this area will be beneficial. Commissioner Broad - The other side of Howard could be looked at also. A motion was made by Commissioner Healey and seconded by Commissioner Vieler to recommend to the Petaluma Community Development Commission that the boundaries of the CBD Project Area be amended as proposed and to approve the draft amended preliminary plan with direction to the project consultant to survey an additional area roughly bordered by Washington Street, Howard Street, Western Avenue and Liberty Street to be added to boundaries of CBD Project Area if deemed feasible. Commissioner Barrett: Yes Commissioner Broad: Yes Commissioner Feibusch: Yes Commissioner Glass: Yes Commissioner Healy: Yes Commissioner Vieler: Yes Chairperson Bennett: Absent 3 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 II. CHEVRON; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT, 4999 PETALUMA BOULEVARD NORTH; APN 007 - 422- 038(ed). RHL Design Group, on behalf of Chevron Products Company, requests amending an existing conditional use permit to remodel an existing gas station. The developed parcel is approximately 29,115 square feet (67 acre) in size, has five gasoline pump islands and a Food Mart of approximately 322 square feet on site. Chevron proposes to: 1) demolish the existing Food Mart and add another gasoline pump island in its place for a total of six gasoline pump islands; 2) add a free- standing Convenience Market of approximately 2,112 square feet; 3) demolish the existing restroom facility and relocate it within the proposed convenience market, and, 4) establish a trash enclosure where the restroom facility currently exists. Assistant Planner Elizabeth Dunn presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Commissioner Healy - Any net change in impervious surface? Elizabeth Dunn - Not very much. Commissioner Healy - Any additional net fill brought in? Commissioner Glass - It looks like water will flow under building. Commissioner Healy - Questions regarding legality of tying this to detention pond study results? Has this been run past the City Attorney? Commissioner Barrett - It seems that the public phone will be removed, will there be new phones available on the site? Commissioner Vieler - Can we require applicant to supply public phones? Commissioner Healy - We could probably add this as a condition. Commissioner Broad - Will there be any increase in runoff with this project? Craig Spaulding - Applicant must provide calculations regarding zero net fill; impervious surface will be increased; on -site detention ponds could be provided. Vincent Smith = Part of this action would include adoption of Initial Study which could allow the addition of a mitigation measure. Rich Miller - Applicant - This project shouldn't have any effect on flooding, but could go further to expand area on piers; site is impassable in winter; must be done during summer months; report from consultant (90 day study) may take too long, delay project for a year; colors are in the beige family of colors, metal roof color has not been chosen. Commissioner Barrett - Will public phones be installed? Rich Miller - Phones will be installed as long as there are no security issues. Vincent Smith - Regarding the timing of the study, Resource Management will submit a draft document to the City at the end of July for review in August. Commissioner Vieler - So this may delay this project beyond this "building" year? Vincent Smith - Possibly, there will probably be other projects that will have this same 4 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 condition (pending study results) applied. Geoff 'Cartright - 56 Rocca Drive - Concerns with building in flood plain; likes questions asked by the Planning Commission. Bryant Moynihan - This may set a precedent based on future laws possibly to be set by City Council after study results; project should be judged under current laws. John Chaney - 55 Rocca - Glad that we are doing this study; RMI study will be important; should have a gas station at this site, but wait for report results. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Glass - This development will improve conditions that exist; does not feel legal pressure to move forward before study results are in; would like to approve this long -term, but should wait for study results; sensible development in this area. Commissioner Healy - Building moratorium was considered and rejected by City Council; if building permits were issued by end of August, would work still be able to be done this year? Rich Miller - Might be possible; it is starting to look like a year 2000 project, may be more prudent to defer for a year, even though it is budgeted for this year. Commissioner Healy - Add language requiring no net runoff increase; are existing CUP (1985) conditions superseded by these new conditions? (Answer, yes). Commissioner Fiebusch - Approve as staff recommends tonight; stringent conditions are proposed; full SPARC still necessary. Commissioner Barrett - Could this project be started without permits? Vincent Smith - No. Commissioner Vieler - Aren't we enacting a building moratorium with this study? This project probably removes some existing impervious surface; adds landscaping; why are we against this project? Commissioner Healy - Doesn't know where this area falls in the study; report may require some redesign.. Commissioner Broad - Where is condition recommending compliance with 90 day study? Vincent Smith - Clarifies that this area may not be affected by the study. Rich Miller - May be able to go into project with zero net fill, way out of holding up project waiting for study results. Commissioner Barrett - Even though this would be built on piers, more water flow would occur. Commissioner Broad - Could retention pond construction be held up pending study results, but allow construction to begin. Vincent Smith - Concerns over issue of how building occurs within flood plain; concern based on area of environmental analysis; may be same project in the end. Commissioner Broad - Spectrum of possible outcome or this project; agrees with staff recommendation; but require staff approval if minor redesign is required after study results are known. Commissioner Vieler - Could support this plan if more drainage details were presented; supports staff recommendation to wait for study results. Vincent Smith - Require drainage system to be directed into storm drain system. City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 Commissioner Broad - Add conditions (from existing CUP) regarding outdoor display racks and fencing restrictions; regarding architecture, enhancement needs to be looked at - upgrade overall architecture and enhance the landscaping. Commissioner Healy - Concurs with staff; conditions need to be worked to indicate adequate report study time; concurs with Commissioner Broad on SPARC review issues. Commissioner Barrett - Agrees with other Commissioners; look at landscaping; add public telephone on site as a condition. A motion was made by Commissioner Feibusch and seconded by Commissioner Healy to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve a Conditional Use Permit to add a sixth gasoline pump island, construct a 2,112 sq. ft. convenience market and provide additional on -site parking spaces and landscaping, subject to the condition that building permits can only be approved upon completion of the City's detention pond study (staff may approve minor redesign changes; however, should there be any conflict between conditions of approval and the flood study that alters the proposal, this project shall return to Planning Commission for review), based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Barrett: Yes Commissioner Broad: Yes Commissioner Feibusch: Yes Commissioner Glass: Yes Commissioner Healy: Yes Commissioner Vieler: Yes Chairperson Bennett: Absent Findings for Mitigated Negative Declaration: 1. Based upon the Initial Study, potential impacts resulting from the project have been identified. Mitigation measures have been proposed and agreed to by the applicant as a condition of project approval that will reduce potential impacts to less than significant. In addition, there is no substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the project, as conditioned and mitigated, would have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the State Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, and is exempt from Fish and Game filing fees because it is proposed on an existing developed site surrounded by urban development with none of the resources as defined in the Code. 3. 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. 4. The Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study and considered public City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 comments before making a recommendation on the project. 5. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. 6. 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. Findings for Conditional Use Permit: 1 2 3 0 That the project, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. The proposal adheres to the development standards for the Highway - Commercial (C -H) zoning district. Specifically, the height of the proposed convenience store is 17.5 feet, less than the maximum height of 40 feet; the existing and proposed gasoline pumps and proposed convenience market covers 8.6 percent of the site, less than the 60 percent maximum site coverage allowed; the location of the proposed convenience market adheres to the front (20 feet), rear (20 feet), and side yard setbacks (none when adjacent to commercial uses); with the relocation of the trash enclosure to be five feet from the western property line, this accessory structure will adhere to the setbacks for detached accessory structures; it has received preliminary comments from the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee and must receive formal SPARC comments after the Planning Commission's review. That the use, as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. A revised base flood elevation certificate will be required at the time construction drawings are submitted and again prior to the request for an issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The information on the revised base flood elevation certificate must indicate that the structure will be a minimum of two feet above the base flood elevation. The landscaped area around the proposed convenience market is to be used as an on -site detention pond. That the use, as conditioned, will not create on -or- off -site traffic problems. Sufficient on -site parking exists for customers to park while purchasing snacks and other items. There will be no alteration in size or location to the existing driveways. That the use, as conditioned, will adhere to the Procedures and Guidelines for Site Plan and Architectural Review. City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 Preliminary comments were solicited from the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee ( SPARC) regarding modifications to the architecture of the proposed convenience market, as well as recommendations on the location and type of landscape materials to be used. Should the Planning Commission approve the proposed project, the applicant must return to SPARC for final design review approval. 5. That the use, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of Section 21 -403 through 21- 403.15, Automobile Service Stations and Car Wash operations as discussed below: The gasoline station and convenience market are conditional uses in the Commercial- Highway zoning district which were previously approved. The proposed convenience market•and additional gasoline pump island is to be located on an existing gas station that fronts onto an arterial street. This use will not break up continuity for pedestrians of retail store frontage. The existing gas station is a retail use within a commercially zoned district. The adjacent land uses are a truck storage yard and golf center. Further to the west is a mobile home park. The proposed convenience market and additional gasoline pump island will not be a nuisance to these uses and residences and other surrounding uses. As all of the work will be conducted on -site, no traffic hazards or traffic congestion should be created which will impact the flow of traffic on Petaluma Boulevard North. There is no request to increase the number of gasoline stations at the intersection. There is no request to construct a new service station or car wash at this location. The existing gas station is 29,115 square feet in area (which exceeds the requirement to have a minimum of 15,000 square feet) and has a frontage of 150 feet along Petaluma Boulevard North (which exceeds the minimum requirement for lot frontage of at least 125 feet). The existing gasoline pump islands are located 45 feet from the eastern property line along Petaluma Boulevard North, 30 feet from the southern property line, 54 feet from the western property line, and 95 feet from the northern property line. Compliance with other statutes such as the Uniform Building Code will be addressed by the Building Division upon its review of the construction drawings. Service station, or car wash operations with gasoline pumps, canopies constructed of incombustible materials, will be open on not less than two (2) sides, and may be attached to the main structure, and will not extend closer than ten (10) feet to any other structure on the site nor closer than ten (10) feet to any interior property line. The canopy is 17 feet from the southern property line, 37 feet from the eastern property line, 91 feet from the northern property line and 46 feet from the western property line. Should the freestanding convenience market be approved, the northern most edge of the canopy would be approximately 58 feet from the southern most edge of the convenience market. No alteration is proposed to the existing location of the driveways. This area of Petaluma Boulevard North is made up of commercial uses. The closest school, Meadowview Elementary and Meadow park and playground, is approximately two 8 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 miles to the south, along Maria Drive. The closest museum is at 20 0 , Street, and the closet place of public assembly within city limits is along the 1200 block of North McDowell Boulevard, approximately one mile to the south. There is no request to store merchandise outside with the request to add an additional gasoline pump and increase the size and relocate the convenience market. Additionally, as illustrated on page 3 of the plans, there is to be 251 square feet of storage area within the proposed convenience market. The existing gas station has two employees. There is to be no increase or reduction in the number of employees. There is no request to operate a coin - operated service station. There is no component of the request to add a car wash facility, whether using coin - operated machinery or not, at this location. NOTICE OF ESTIMATED FEES, DEDICATIONS, AND OTHER EXACTIONS Pursuant to Section 66020 Of the California Government Code, the applicant /developer has the statutory right to protest development fees, dedication and reservation requirements, and other exactions included in this project approval, and listed as follows (calculations based on the addition of one gasoline pump island and a 2,112 square foot freestanding convenience market, and additional landscaping): • Water connection: Contact the Water Field Office at 778 -4392 to determine the adequacy of the existing meter. • Community Facilities Fee: $1,575.00 • School Facilities Fee: Contact the School District at 778 -4621 • Traffic Mitigation: $4,448.00 Conditions for Conditional Use Permit 1. The following requirements of the Planning Department shall be met: a. The grading plan shall be revised to clearly illustrate compliance with the City's No Net Fill Policy on plans that are submitted for building permit issuance. b. The applicant shall submit a revised Base Flood Elevation Certificate which demonstrates that the proposed convenience market is elevated a minimum of two feet above the base flood elevation. An initial certificate must be submitted with the construction drawings and reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. Once the convenience market has been constructed and prior to requesting a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit a final Base Flood Elevation Certificate for review and approval by the Planning Department. C. Eleven (11) parking spaces shall be illustrated on plans that are submitted for building permit issuance. The Planning Department shall review the 9 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 plans to ensure that the additional parking spaces implement the parking ratio for the additional square footage used for retail purposes, number of employees and gasoline pump islands. Parking shall conform to the requirements of Article 20, Parking and Loading Facilities, Off - Street, of the Zoning Ordinance. d. Upon the completion of the detention pond flood study, should this report indicate that on -site water detention is not an appropriate method to address stormwater management, staff shall determine whether this project shall return to the Planning Commission to address and implement the recommendations of the flood study or shall administratively approve the project. e. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures, as identified in the Initial Study, filed June 2, 1999 for the Chevron Gas Station Remodel proposal. f. Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee approval shall be required for the design of the project prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. g. "No Left Turn" sign at exists onto Petaluma Boulevard North from the station shall be installed. This location and size of the sign shall be illustrated on plans that are submitted for building permit issuance. h. No portable or moveable display racks shall be permitted on the exterior grounds in order that no additional debris or obstruction be created in times of flooding. i. No fences shall be allowed. j. At least one pay telephone shall be installed at the site. The location of the telephone shall be' illustrated on plans that are submitted for building permit issuance. k. . The project shall be redesigned to enhance the architecture and landscaping of this gateway project, subject to the review and approval of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. 2. The following requirements of the Engineering Department shall be met: a. All requirements of the Engineering Department as illustrated on Attachment 6 must be met and reflected on plans submitted for building permit issuance. 3. The following requirements of the Building Division shall be met: 10 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 a. Grading must be certified when completed to indicate compliance with approved plans and will be required for occupancy. b. E Soils with expansion index greater than 20 requires special design foundation per Uniform Building Code 2904(b). c. d- All roofing shall be "B" rated or better per Ordinance No. 1744/1988. d. e- Show site drainage and grading topography. e. f Indicate all utilities on site plan. f. g- Responsible party to sign plans. g. h Submit soils report to verify foundation design. h. i- Indicate group occupancy, type of construction square footage. i. t Plans must show compliance to 1994 UBC, UPC, UMC, and 1993 NEC.. Plans must also show compliance to current Title 24 Energy Conservation and /or Disabled Access Requirements.. j. 17 Provide structural calculations for all non - conventional design items. k.1- Demolition permit required to remove any structure. 1. fn All retaining wall shall meet the requirements of the 1994 UBC, and shall comply with Petaluma Standards Ordinance No. 1727/1988. 11 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 4. The following requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met: a. A permit for Hazardous Materials Storage and Use is required prior to occupancy. Submit the enclosed Hazardous Materials Declaration Form. If no hazardous materials will be stored, used or dispensed in the business, then state this on the Declaration Form. The Declaration Form is due prior to approval of the plans. b. Businesses storing hazardous materials require submittal of a Hazardous Materials Management Plan to the Petaluma Fire Department. Before a Certificate of Occupancy is approved, the following conditions must be approved by the Office of the Fire Marshal: 1. Hazardous Material Management; Plan is approved. 2. All storage and use of hazardous materials shall be in conformance with the Uniform Fire Code. Businesses intending to store, use or dispense hazardous materials may be required to provide increased fire protection control measures including, but not limited to increased fire protection, fire rated separations, 'secondary containment, ventilation and fire alarm systems. C. Business intending to store, use or dispense hazardous materials may be required to provide increased fire protection control measures including, but not limited to increased fire protection, fire rated separations, secondary containment, ventilation and fire alarm systems. d. An' annual Fire Department permit is required for this facility. III. CELLULAR ONE; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE; 1 CASA GRANDE ROAD; AP NO. 005 -050 -028; FILE NO. CUP98032, VAR99002(jkt). Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to authorize construction of a 100 foot monopole with 12 antennae and a 135 sq. ft. equipment building; and a Variance to allow the monopole to exceed the 40 foot height limitation. Staff has rescheduled this item to the Planning Commission Meeting of July 13, 1999. 12 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 IV. RIDGEVIEW HEIGHTS; TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, PUD STANDARDS; AP No's 019 - 201 -006 and 025; File No. TSM98003(mb). Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map and the adoption of PUD Development Standards to subdivide two lots into nine with a remainder. Associate Planner Mabel Bialik presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Speakers: Commissioner Healy - Does staff feel lots 5,6 and 7 are not sufficiently visible to require full SPARC review ?; any opportunities to interconnect with other surrounding subdivisions ?; any consideration given to pedestrian and bicycle access to Sunnyhill Drive? Mabel Bialik - No discussion regarding pedestrian, bicycle access. Commissioner Broad - Lot 1, driveway access off Rosewood Court; clarified lot 10 is really a remainder parcel; as part of PUD Development Standards - could conditions be placed on remainder parcel? what is maximum density of project? (Answer - Maximum of 2 units per acre per General Plan; City Council previously allocated a maximum of 10 lots for the project site; cannot exceed this). Mabel Bialik - Will add a condition indicating remainder parcel cannot be further divided; PUD Standards need to indicate this is a single - family dwelling subdivision. Steve Buckley - Applicant - Pleasure to work with City staff, very helpful; would like latitude on retaining wall height; all homes required to have SPARC or Admin. SPARC review - there are precise design guidelines in place; concerned with parking requirements for Lot 2; regarding 25 foot height limitation - difficult to accomplish; regarding hours of construction - understands noise concerns, but would like consistency with Stoneridge hours (7AM -7PM, Monday through Friday; 8AM -5PM Saturday; no work on Sunday); this will be an attractive subdivision; not feasible to provide access to adjacent property, which is already approved (Pamela Place). Larry Jonas - No problems with this subdivision, this property will drain into the existing system; this project will be subject to a payback agreement when that's finalized; Commission should look at construction hours liberally (same as adjacent projects). John Lake - 610 E. Street - owns property adjacent to this project; would like to put driveway across five foot strip bordering this project, will eliminate one driveway onto Sunnyslope; better fire protection for rear of his property; not sure who owns this five foot strip. Commissioner Healy - Where is this narrow strip of land located? If this will eliminate a driveway from Sunnyslope, this should be encouraged. Steve Buckley - Aware of the payback agreement, at this time, property owner not inclined to offer an easement to Lake; if Fire Marshal indicated safety issues, he may 13 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 reconsider. Steve Lafranchi - (Lake Project Engineer) - Why not make strip part of the right -of -way; still have owner of Lot 9 maintain landscaping. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Feibusch - Does not have a problem with retaining wall height going to five feet, building height limitation should remain, construction hours determined by Municipal Code; Lot 2 parking design will be reviewed by SPARC; can provide attractive alternatives to asphalt, pleased with the project, good idea to cluster homes near the street. Commissioner Glass - Make sure all recommendations of soils study are followed; good project; may want to consider changing limitations in the Zoning Ordinance in the future. Commissioner Healy - No problem with five foot retaining .walls; go with staff recommendations on construction hours; applicant should be prepared to discuss with City Council pedestrianibicycle access; negotiate in good faith with Mr. Lake to allow easement (before City Council meeting); any sidewalk to be required in front of Lake property? Vincent Smith - No, not required along Sunnyslope Road; have not received improvement plans for Lake property; Planning Commission determined during appeal of the Tatum Parcel Map that sidewalk was not required. Steve Buckley - Understood sidewalk would be continuous; if Lake doesn't have to do sidewalks, affects Ridgeview project. Commissioner Feibusch - Maybe should also add crosswalk at new street. Commissioner Broad - Decision on Tatum property sidewalk requirement was based on fact that sidewalk dead -ended into a hillside; believes sidewalk should be required with this project and with Lake property for continuity. This area is more suburban than Tatum site, sidewalk would not be as intrusive on this property. Commissioner Healy - Agrees with sidewalk requirement for this and Lake property. Commissioner Barrett - Does not feel sidewalk should be required on this or Lake properties. Planning Commission took a straw vote on requiring sidewalks for Ridgeview Heights, 5- 1 approved. Commissioner Broad - Likes buildings at bottom of property; Mr. Lake should have access from this project; would like to eliminate a driveway onto Sunnyslope; five foot retaining wall ok; what are setbacks for R -1 20,000 and R -1 10,000 lots? doesn't like all the setbacks, but since development to occur at bottom of property, probably should have flexibility with R -1 20,000 standards; should keep parking requirements for Lot 2; maybe look at access off of Rosewood Court. Vincent Smith - Planning Commission can require an irrevocable offer of access to Mr. Lake's property. Commissioner Vieler - If this easement is given, there should only be one driveway allowed from Lake property onto Sunnyslope; how can we guarantee this? 14 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 Vincent Smith - Final Map will show only one driveway. Steve Lafranchi - If this is tied to Final Map, Lake has to wait for Ridgeview street to go in for other access; no control over timing. Commissioner Broad - Individual parties should work out details. A motion was made by Commissioner Healy and seconded by Commissioner Barrett to recommend to City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Tentative Subdivision Map and PUD Development Standards based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Barrett: Yes Commissioner Broad: Yes Commissioner Feibusch: Yes Commissioner Glass: Yes Commissioner Healy: Yes Commissioner Vieler: Yes Chairperson Bennett: Absent Mitigated Negative Declaration: 1. Based upon the Initial Study, potential impacts resulting from the project have been identified. Mitigation measures have been proposed and agreed to by the applicant as a condition of project approval that will reduce potential impacts to less than significant. In addition, there is no substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the project, as conditioned and mitigated, would have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the State Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, and is exempt from Fish and Game filing fees because it is proposed on a partially developed site and is surrounded by existing residential development, with none of the resources as defined in the Code. 3. 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. 4. The Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study and considered public comments before making a recommendation on the project, and finds that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate to the project. 5. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public review at the City of Petaluma Planning Department, City Hall, 1 I English Street, .Petaluma, California. 6. A previous Environmental Impact Report (Proposed Sunnyslope Assessment 15 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 District and Annexation EK accepted by the City Council in 1991, adequately evaluated the environmental impacts of the project and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant. Based on the Initial Study prepared for the current Ridge View Heights project, no new AIL significant environmental impacts will result which were not previously evaluated, And therefore, a subsequent EIR need not be prepared. 7. The mitigation measures adopted with the previous EIR shall still apply to the Ridge View Heights project. Adoption of PUD Development Standards: 1. That the PUD Development Standards are consistent with the R -1- 20,000 zoning district standards, as amended or revised, and will provide for quality in design of house plans, landscaping, and site plans. 2. That the plan for the proposed development is compatible with the area and that the variation in lot size, width, and depth is consistent with the intent of Resolution No. 91 -152 N.C.S. which allows the Planning Commission and City Council to alter the minimum parcel size and lot dimensions in order to promote the most environmentally sensitive and land efficient lotting patterns; and that this will be achieved by clustering the houses towards the lower elevations of the site and preserving significant trees. 3. That the proposed project has complied with the requirements of CEQA through the preparation and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project, which addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with its development, and that no further environmental analysis is necessary. Tentative Subdivision Map: 1. That the Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions, of the Municipal Code, including, but not limited to, providing the required information for processing and approving the map, providing for public improvements and infrastructure, creating buildable lots, and providing access to public streets. 2. That the Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of the California Subdivision Map Act, providing the required information for the processing of map applications, and providing for the required improvements, dedications, and easements. 3. That the proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and improvements, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of 16 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 Suburban Residential, 0.6 to 2.0 dwelling units per acre, which applies to lands away from the urban core with varying lot sizes. The General Plan land use designation is consistent with the PUD zoning designation. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the density and the type of development proposed. The project is consistent with the development allotment of 10 lots for the site, established by Resolution No. 91 -152 N.C.S., adopted by the City Council in June, 1991, for the Sunnyslope area. 5. That reasonable public access on public roads is provided for the proposed lots by the construction of a new road, which will align with Smith Drive. 6. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, and that no substantial or avoidable injury will occur to fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project will include an "open space scenic easement" to ensure the preservation of a stand of mature trees at the north end of the project site (on Lot 10), and will comply with the recommendations of the Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report, prepared by Horticultural Associates, February 25, 1999. NOTICE OF ESTIMATED FEES, DEDICATIONS, AND OTHER EXACTIONS Pursuant to Section 66020 Of the California Government Code, the applicant /developer has the statutory right to protest development fees, dedication and reservation requirements, and other exactions included in this project approval, and listed as follows (calculations are based upon the Tentative Subdivision Map submitted with this application, creating nine new lots with a remainder (Lot 10). • Sewer Connection: $ 2,550 /unit • Water Connection: Contact Water Field Office at 778 -4392 • Community Facilities: $ 863.50 /unit (except Lot 10) • Storm Drain: $ 462.60 /unit (except Lot 10) • Parks and Recreation: $ 3,974 /unit (except Lot 10) • School Facilities: Contact School District at 778 -4621 • In -lieu Housing: $ 2,400 /unit (except Lot 10) (collected at escrow) • Traffic Mitigation: $ 3,007 /unit (except Lot 10) • Digitized Data: $ 100 ($10 /lot) 17 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June.22, 1999 Conditions From the Pla Department 1. Approval is granted for the project in accordance with the Tentative Subdivision Map submitted to the Planning Department, dated March 1, 1999 (revised), project narrative, and proposed PUD Development Standards, as conditioned and /or revised. 2. Unless otherwise addressed within the PUD Development Standards, all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee Design Guidelines and Procedures, and the Municipal Code shall apply. 3. In accordance with the provisions of the Petaluma Municipal Code, the applicant shall pay City Special Development Fees, at time of building permit application or as otherwise required by the Municipal Code, including, but not limited to, the following: sewer connection, water connection, community facilities development, storm drain impact, parks and recreation, school facilities, in -lieu housing, and traffic mitigation fees. 4. The PUD Development Standards shall be amended to reflect the following: Hours of construction shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5 :00 p.m., Monday through Friday, unless special circumstances warrant additional hours and unless a permit is first secured from the Planning Director prior to the change in hours. No construction shall be permitted on Saturday, Sunday, or legal holidays. There shall be no start up of machines or equipment prior to 8:00 a.m., Monday through Friday. There shall be no delivery of materials or equipment prior to 7:00 a.m. or past 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. There shall be no cleaning of machines or equipment and no servicing of equipment past 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 5. House plans and landscaping plans for Lots l and 2 shall be subject to the approval of the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee ( SPARC) prior to the submittal for building permits. Plans for Lots 3 -9 shall be subject to administrative design review. Plans shall be consistent with the PUD Development Standards for Ridge View Heights, the soils reports prepared by Giblin Associates (July 3, 1991 and as amended March 5, 1999), and the Tree Preservation and Mitigation Report, prepared by Horticultural Associates (February 25, 1999). Plans shall include color and material samples. 6. A maximum of 42 inch high fencing shall be allowed on Lots 1 and 2 on the Sunnyslope Road frontage. Fencing 6 ft. or higher shall not extend toward Sunnyslope Road beyond the wall of the house. The front of the porch shall not be considered the wall of the house. Fencing shall be shown on landscape plans submitted for SPARC approval. 7. Lot 2 shall front on Sunnyslope Road. Plans submitted for SPARC 18 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 approval shall reflect the following: sufficient driveway area for Lot 2 to allow for turnaround of parked cars; no backout onto Sunnyslope Road shall be allowed; Lot 2 shall also provide for adequate driveway area to accommodate guest parking. 8. The Grant of Private Open Space Scenic Easement shall be revised to include the following provisions: a. No trees shall be removed, other than fruit trees, without prior City approval; b. The provision regarding open wire fencing shall be revised to delete the reference to wood fencing and to read as follows: "Open wireAveed fencing (with wood posts /cap optional) is the only fencing allowed adjacent to or inside the open space scenic easement." 9. The Grant of Private Open Space Scenic Easement shall be recorded on the title to Lots 5, 6, and 10 by the applicant. A copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any building permits for any of the lots. 10. All mitigation measures outlined in the Initial Study for Ridge View Heights and all applicable mitigation measures adopted with the Proposed Sunnyslope Assessment District and Annexation EK accepted by the City Council in 1991, shall apply. 11. For projects involving improvements on existing streets or substantial construction traffic and heavy equipment, the applicant shall provide - a Traffic Control Plan for review and approval of the City's Traffic Engineer, prior to issuance of a building or grading permit. At least one -lane of traffic in each direction shall be maintained at all times through the construction period, unless a temporary detour plan is submitted and approved the City Traffic Engineer. Heavy construction traffic and haul trucks shall avoid school zones between school arrival and departures times. 12. During non - working hours, open trenches and construction hazards shall be provided with signage, flashers, and barricades approved by the Street Superintendent to warn oncoming motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians of potential safety hazards. 19 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June'22, 1999 13. All road surfaces shall be restored to pre - project conditions after completion of any project- related utility installation activities. All trench pavement restoration within existing asphalt streets shall receive a slurry seal. If the trench cut is within the parking strip, then only the parking strip needs a slurry seal. Otherwise, half the street shall receive a slurry seal. 14. Any pedestrian access through and/or adjacent to the project site shall remain unobstructed during project construction or an alternate route established as approved by the Police Chief and City Engineer 15. The applicant shall incorporate street lights along all public right -of= ways in the project design to conform to the City standard spacing and illumination requirements. The street lights shall have standard metal fixtures. The applicant shall provide verification that all lights meet PG &E's LS2 rating system, prior to City acceptance of improvements. 16. The applicants /developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of the project when such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and /or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicants /developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good faith. 17. The Tentative Map shall be limited to a maximum density of 10 single - family dwelling units. Remainder parcel shall not be further divided. 18. A City standard sidewalk on Sunnyslope Road with a crosswalk at the intersection of Rosewood Court and Smith Drive shall be required in accordance with standard Engineering condition. The addition of the crosswalk - shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Committee. 19. Retaining walls up to five feet shall be allowed as indicated in the PUD Development Standard, subject to staff review and approval. 20 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 20. If the property owner of the adjacent parcel (John Lake, APN 019 -201- 024) agrees to eliminate one of the two existing driveways on Sunnyslope Road, an access easement shall be recorded on the title to Lot 9 of Ridgeview Heights to provide driveway access from the new street to the Lake property. The easement shall be shown on the Final Map and recorded on the title to Lot 9. Final location of the driveway access shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Department. A copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any building permits for any of the lots. Conditions From the Fire Department 1. The fire hydrant at turnout should be located on the slightest grade possible (away from the 13 percent grade). Conditions of approval from the following departments or agencies are attached to this report as Attachment 5: • Engineering Department • Building Department • Public Works Department • Sonoma County Water Agency • Pacific Gas and Electric V. LARSON APPEAL; 100 GRANT AVENUE; AP No. 008 -510 -006 AND 079; File No. TPM99001(mb). Appeal of condition of approval for the administrative approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide two lots into four with a designated remainder. Associate Planner Mabel Bialik presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened. (Commissioner Vieler left the meeting at this time.) SPEAKERS: Commissioner Feibusch - What is the status of Moynihan Payback Agreement? Craig Spaulding - Intent to enter into payback agreement with City at time of Moynihan Map - Agreement was never executed and recorded. Commissioner Glass - The payback money should go to the City, not to Mr. Moynihan based on November 1994 letter written by Mr. Moynihan; the only question is how much the fees should be, not to whom they should be paid. Bryant Moynihan - 102 Dawn Place - This is a major, not minor subdivision; concerns 21 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 with sidewalk safety; storm drainage concerns; applicant hasn't completed half - street improvements with previous subdivision; look at overall development here; (supplied definitions of Tentative and Final Maps) this is 5 lots making this a major subdivision; photos - Grant Ave. northbound /southbound; safety issues; storm drain, two issues - storm drain inadequate in some areas on Grant; equity of storm drain system - offered to contribute to sidewalk improvements. City was to get $625 reimbursement per lot; I was to get this amount, too, based on 60 lots in the area; submitted calculations 5 years ago, Agreement wasn't done; shouldn't have to spend more money on this. Commissioner Glass - Per the written agreement, the City is due a payback. Bryant Moynihan - City should receive a reimbursement with the development of each lot. Commissioner Glass - Why should the City spend more than one -half of the costs of the improvements? City has already spent $20,000, I don't see anything indicating Mr. Moynihan should be reimbursed. Not comfortable with reimbursement to developer, should go to the City. Commissioner Broad - It is clear that the City should be reimbursed, is there anything in writing indicating reimbursement to Mr. Moynihan? Commissioner Healy - Do you (Mr. Moynihan) have any other documentation on the payback? What would be different if the project was a major subdivision? Bryant Moynihan - Will have to go through rest of old files. Doesn't really want to argue payback here. Feels it's a lost cause. This subdivision should be done correctly and safely; sidewalk should be required to be finished to I Street; will work with neighbors to obtain easements. Commissioner Barrett - Curious regarding the storm drain situation - water pools up in this area; there are four lots proposed with another lot, storm drain is inadequate now. Bryant Moynihan - This is not a Parcel Map but a Subdivision Map; project should conditioned to provide sidewalks all the way up to I Street; required Larson to improve cul -de -sac even though it's not contiguous; address sidewalk/traffic /storm drain issues. Steve LaFranchi - Project Engineer - In 1979, map was recorded, no bonding required; proposal is to complete improvements on Grant Court; took advice of Planning Director on how to proceed (Parcel Map with remainder parcel); should not have to provide sidewalk to I Street; frontage only improvements should be required; will pay fair share of storm drainage fees. Commissioner Broad - Was Mr. Larson involved in the 1979 Parcel Map? Steve LaFranchi - No, it was his mother's property. Cleve Masad - 1155 1 Street - Traffic concerns with existing conditions; sidewalk across street works well; major problems to other property owners if sidewalks are required; doesn't want his kids walking on that side of street; big mistake to require sidewalk; sidewalk on south side should be improved; put a crosswalk at Grant Court. Rachel Honey - 114 Grant - Flooding/drainage issues; storm drains currently inadequate. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Broad - Can Engineering Department representative comment on storm drain system adequacy? 22 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 Craig Spaulding - Requirements of storm drain adequacy - approval required by City Engineering Department and Sonoma County Water Agency; new catch basin will correct "puddling" problem. Commissioner Broad - Requested staff response regarding status of this project (minor subdivision ?). Vincent Smith - Discussed Subdivision Map Act - Parcel Map conditions; meets standards for Parcel Map with remainder land; even if it was a subdivision, would be hard to make the nexus to require sidewalk extension to I Street. Commissioner Broad - Is a Certificate of Compliance required for the remainder if it sells? (Answer, yes). Commissioner Healy - Conflicting testimony regarding sidewalk on north side of street; what is the feasibility of extending sidewalks? Craig Spaulding - Believes sidewalk as it exists is safe; would have to negotiate with existing property owners if sidewalks extended. Commissioner Feibusch — Has reviewed many subdivisions; hasn't seen sidewalk improvements required past frontage of project; storm drain improvements - agrees with Engineering Department. Commissioner Healy - Minor versus major subdivision questions - only pertinent if we are discussing sidewalk extension; agrees with staff recommendations; storm drain system will be let staff work out details of payback agreement. Commissioner Broad - Benefits will come out of this appeal because Larson was not original subdivider; doesn't think other lots should count as part of this project since they were split under different ownership; remainder parcel question should be pursued with City Attorney; where did the $625 per lot payback amount come from? What's the typical formula? Craig Spaulding - Take entire watershed, calculate runoff from each parcel, whether developed or not, divide by runoff of the entire watershed. Commissioner Broad - So Council never specified anything about the amount of reimbursement? Craig Spaulding - Council indicated their intent to enter into an agreement. The applicant should submit the necessary information and Engineering will prepare the agreement and take it to Council. A motion was made by Commissioner Feibusch and seconded by Commissioner Glass to deny the appeal based on the findings listed in the staff report. Commissioner Barrett: No Commissioner Broad: Yes Commissioner Feibusch: Yes Commissioner Glass: Yes Commissioner Healy: Yes Commissioner Vieler: Absent Chairperson Bennett: Absent Environmental Review 23 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - June 22, 1999 1. The Tentative Parcel Map was .reviewed under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines). Pursuant to Section 15315, Class 15, Minor Land Divisions, of the CEQA Guidelines, the project is categorically exempt and no further environmental review is required. Findings for Denial: 1. That the Planning Commission has reviewed the documentation attached to the staff report, taken public testimony, and finds that a payback agreement, as described by the appellant, is not in place. 2. That City Engineering staff shall prepare a payback agreement upon receipt of the necessary information from the appellant, and that the formula for reimbursement shall be based upon standard City practice of calculating runoff based on the entire watershed area. 3. That the property owner, Mr. Robert Larson, shall be subject to the payback agreement, and the amount shall be formulated based on standard City practice of calculating runoff based on the entire watershed area. COMMISSION BUSINESS: VI. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RULES AND REGULATIONS. This item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 13, 1999. VII. LIAISON REPORTS. None given. ADJOURNMENT: 11:58 PM s \pc- p1anVninutes \0622 24