HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/28/1999of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — September 28, 1999
p, L City of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
City Hall, 11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498
E -Mail planninp_(a,ci.petaluma.ca.us
Web Page http: / /www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1999, 7:00 PM
Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Bennett *, Feibusch, Glass, Healy
Absent: Broad, llieler
* Chairperson
Staff: Vincent C. Smith .vcr, Interim Planning Director
Jane K. Thomson, Senior Planning Technician
Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval Of Minutes: Minutes of September 14, 1999 were approved.
Public Comment: Geoff Cartright spoke on flooding.
Director's Report: None.
Commissioners' Report: Announced that this was Vin Smith's
last meeting.
Correspondence: Two (2) letters in opposition, and information provided by
application regarding Cahill large Family Daycare.
APPEAL. STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
1
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — September 28, 1999
NEW BUSINESS:
PUBLIC HEARING:
GEERLINGS AND WADE, 1460 Cader Lane, APN 005 - 290 -001; Pile
No. CUP #99024(jkt).
Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and a determination that Public
Convenience or Necessity would be served by the issuance of a State of
California Alcoholic Beverage License for a wholesale and limited service retail
wine broker in an existing building at 1460 Cader Lane.
Jane Thomson presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Frank Marinello, G & W Management: the number of employees staff report is
correct, however it won't be the two specifically named.
Commissioner Feibusch: How many tenants are in the building?
Frank Marinello: Three.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Healy and seconded by Commissioner
Glass to find this project exempt from CEQA and determine that public
convenience or necessity will be served and issue a Conditional Use Permit based
on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Barrett:
Yes
Commissioner Broad:
Absent
Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
Commissioner Glass:
Yes
Commissioner Healy:
Yes
Commissioner Vieler:
Absent
Chairperson Bennett: Yes
Findings for the Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity
1. The proposed use is within a census tract which, pursuant to State Assembly Bill
2897 which amended Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code, is
considered to have an undue concentration of retail liquor licenses. The Planning
Commission finds that, pursuant to Section 23958.4(b)(2), this license should be
issued to Geerlings & Wade because:
2
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — September 28, 1999
a. The sale of wine by mail order will provide a convenience to the general
public and especially to people unable to personally visit the retail shop.
b. The sale of wine to patrons by mail in addition to walk in sales makes the
business economically viable.
C. Although Geerlings & Wade's facility is located within a census tract
which experiences an undue concentration of retail liquor licenses, the sale of
alcohol will not create a nuisance or be detrimental to the public health or welfare
as the main nature of the use is direct shipping to private homes and businesses
and not on site sales /consumption. In addition, the hours of the retail operation
are limited to 9AM to 5PM Monday through Friday which will limit the potential
for nuisances.
CEQA Findings
1. Geerlings & Wade's proposed facility is exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301
(Existing Facilities), as the building and similar office /retail uses are existing.
Conditional Use Permit Findinf4s
The proposed use will conform to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma
Zoning Ordinance and the Cader Lane Industrial Park Zoning Standards which
allow wholesale shipping and warehousing, and retail sales of alcohol with a
Conditional Use Permit.
2. The proposed use will conform to the requirements, intent, goals and policies of
the Petaluma General Plan as this use is proposed to be located in an area
designated Industrial on the land use map, and is primarily an office and
wholesale warehouse use which relies heavily on shipping/receiving functions.
3. That the proposed project, as conditioned, 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. Conditions of approval imposed on the project will regulate hours of
operation, permitted activities, and other characteristics of the business.
Conditional Use Permit Conditions
1. The proposed Geerlings & Wade facility, which includes an office, warehouse,
shipping and receiving dock, and a retail shop with limited hours of operation
shall be the limit of the activities permitted through this Conditional Use Permit.
Any activity not specifically named in the above shall be prohibited without
amendment to this CUP.
3
City_ of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — September 28, 1999
2. Hours of operation for the office may be 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
Hours of operation for the warehouse, and the shipping and receiving dock, shall
be limited to 8:OOAM to 6:30PM Monday through Friday. The retail shop, shall
be limited to 9:00AM•to 5:OOPM Monday through Friday. An expansion of hours
for either the shipping and receiving dock and /or retail shop shall require an
amendment to this CUP.
3. No on -site tastings to consumers shall be permitted at any time. Consumer
tastings shall require an amendment to this CUP to allow the operation of an
Alcoholic Beverage Establishment.
4. All employees shall comply with the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) laws and
regulations. Suspension of the business owners license by the ABC may be basis
for revocation of this CUP.
5. All trash shall be either contained inside the building, or in the trash area provided
by the property owner.
6. This use permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review and
approval at any time due to complaints regarding lack of compliance with
conditions of approval, noise generation, or other adverse operating
characteristics.
7. The applicants /developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or
any of its boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, 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.
4
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - September 28, 1999
II. CAHILL LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE, 625 "C" Street, APN 008 - 102 -009;
File No. CUP #99022(ead).
Consideration of a minor Conditional Use Permit to expand an existing family
day care facility to allow up to 12 children at 625 "C" Street, APN 008 -102 -009.
Hours of operation will be from 11:50am to 6:OOpm during school days, 8
to 6:OOpm during school holidays and summer vacation. One assistant will be
employed to from 2:30pm to 5:30pm. Ms. Cahill will pick up the children from
school and transport them to her residence for after school care.
Vincent Smith presented the staff report.
Chairman Bennett: Question regarding state law and number of children allowed before
local discretionary power involved.
Vincent Smith: State and local regulations allow eight (8) children without local
jurisdiction review and /or approval, the question tonight is whether four (4) additional
children are permitted.
Commissioner Glass: If the commission approves twelve (12), and later Ms. Cahill wants
to increase to 14, does the issue come back to the commission? (Answer: yes)
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Sheryl Cahill, 625 C Street: Started a part time day care facility in home on C Street in
May 1998. Was full time student at the time, realized it wasn't possible to do both, and
so is now concentrating full time on day care. Realizes that there is a shortage of day
care in Sonoma County. Is asking for a CUP for 12 children because she has a waiting
list; parents have asked her to expand. Has questions regarding proposed conditions of
approval 43A (number of children); #3b (landscaping — property is fully landscaped with
trees and shrubs along the fencelines), only one side is it sparse, and that neighbor
supports this proposal, would like deletion this condition; 93c (does not have any
equipment that exceeds 8'0 "), 93e (provided a drawing of the driveway — not more than
one or two parents are at the day care at a time; has staggered departure times); 93j (noise
— the kids are not always noisy, there is "quiet time ", doesn't want to have to decide
which 4 to exclude, has a policy to not allow screaming, but cannot prohibit squeals of
Joy).
Commissioner Glass: Please describe how children are picked up — staggered or...?
Sheryl Cahill: Has a mini van, has 1 employee who walks to work, Cahill picks up 5
children at a time, and drops at the day care, if necessary goes out again. In the summer
and on holidays, the parents bring their children to the day care..
5
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — September 28, 1999
Commissioner Feibusch: Will you be picking up all twelve?
Sheryl Cahill: Yes.
Barry Nadler, 617 C Street: would like to start by saying that the Cahill's are a nice and
good family. What she is doing is a good thing, but is concerned as to the extent it will
affect the neighbors. Expansion will have an adverse affect on them, they live next door,
have gotten used to the noise associated with the houses and the number of children, are
not curmudgeons. Cahill has a small house and back yard, Nadler's can hear the
children, and they all make noise. Eight AM is early in the summer to have children
outside making noise. An increase from eight to twelve increases burden. Even the
staggering of child pick -up will impact traffic, more cars are dangerous. Did property
owner make application?
Commissioner Barrett: Question to Cahill — will there be an expansion in operating hours.
Answer: No.
Jill Lee, 514 — 8 St.: As a parent, homeowner and professional, it is a challenge to find
quality daycare. Understands that the increase in number of children is a community
need, encourages other families to do child care.
Mr. Pierre, 22 — 7 Street: Works hard to have a good community and neighborhood,
questions the appropriateness of this place for childcare. His issue is parking, has to go
out into street because sidewalk is blocked due to cars, hard to keep noise level down if
12 children, values privacy and quiet.
Louallen Mill, 3 Highland: Supports proposal, cannot get childcare, understands issues as
traffic; McNear School does not have an after school program for children so childcare is
a real problem:
Greg Cahill, 625 C Street; Is aware of the difficulty of getting childcare, Federal
government has failed to address childcare; most parent are clients and live in the
neighborhood, two neighbors of 625 C have given consent in the packet. Remember that
children are our greatest resource and need quality care.
Paul Wolf, 622 C Street: Supports the increase to twelve children. Regarding the
conditions and situation in neighborhood, this proposal is positive. This house used to
generate a lot of noise, and have police presence; Cahill's have improved site; the sound
of children is pleasing and lower in volume than the gardener with hi power motors and
leaf blowers. Have not notice increase in traffic, used to be in law enforcement, the
constant presence of an occupied house represents extra eyes which is good, crime
decreases. Burglaries often happen during the day when people are at work.
T
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — September 28, 1999
Shelly Kincaid, 818 Schuman Lane: supports proposal, difficult to get day care, wants her
kindergartner to stay in day care, the Boys and Girls Club is just a warehouse, doesn't
have programs.
Deborah Condrad, San Anselmo: In support of Cahill, a good quality daycare is hard to
find. Lived next door to an elementary school for two years, every Saturday and Sunday
was woken up early by soccer. Youth violence is a product of a child's upbringing. Ie
takes a village to raise a child.
Leann James, 618 I Street: Nurse practitioner in Petaluma, only choice she has is the
Boys and Girls Club, and for her 2 °a grader there is not much supervision, so from
2:30pm to 5pm she is anxious. It is sad that people complain about the noise. In support
of proposal.
Julie Lauritzen, 48 — 6`" Street, used to own 614 C Street, is opposed to the increase from
eight children to twelve. There is not adequate parking now because of the commuters
who use the street. The main concern is the additional traffic; the fire and police
departments use the street as a main thoroughfare, there is only one streetlight and in the
winter it is very dark, obscured by trees. In emergencies where will the children be
taken?
Gordon Poit, 1003 G Street: Son goes to Sheryl's; the increase from eight to twelve is
incremental, which creates three to four extra trips per day; have never had to look for
parking; there is enough lighting; doesn't worry about a natural disaster, that's between
the parent's and provider.
The public hearing was closed.
Vincent Smith: responded to comments made during public hearing, the property owner
did consent to the application; the CUP runs with the land.
Commissioner Barrett: does not have any questions, the applicant has made a clear
application, supports proposal.
Commissioner Feibusch: Knows that there is a crisis finding childcare; can understand
neighbors concerns; hope they can respect each other; with regard to vehicles blocking
sidewalk, applicant must address this issue, applicant is responsible for an emergency
plan. The need for childcare is there and is in support of this application.
Commissioner Healy: Agrees with the comments on need, with regard to staff report and
the General Plan, there are objectives listed, given nature of neighborhood and size of
proposal, especially background noise which this proposal cannot meet, cannot support.
Commissioner Glass: this is a logical extension of the business, this is a controversial
issue, discounts the traffic argument, noise is a factor, supports if children can be taken in
to house periodically for inside quiet time.
7
of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — September 28, 1999
Chairman Bennett: Supports request. Encourages Cahill to work with neighbors in regard
to operating characteristics. Does not support the limitation of number of children
outside, would like that changed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Feibusch and seconded by Commissioner Glass to
find this project exempt from CEQA and to approve a Conditional Use Permit based on
the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Barrett: Yes
Commissioner Broad: Absent
Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
Commissioner Glass: Yes
Commissioner Healy: No
Commissioner Vieler: Absent
Chairperson Bennett: Yes
Findings for the Conditional Use Permit
1. That the project, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and the intent
of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan.
The proposal to expand an existing small family daycare facility and become a
large family daycare facility complies with Section 6 -407 of the R -1, One Family
Residential District zoning and the Urban Standard General Plan land use
designation. The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit prior to
receiving approval of the expansion of the child care facility.
2. That the use, as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the
public welfare of the community.
The hours of operation are from 11:50 am to 6:00 pm during the school year and
8:00 am to 6:00 pm during the summer months and on holidays. These hours of
operation are consistent with the existing operation of the small family daycare
and will not constitute a nuisance to the neighborhood.
3. That the use, as conditioned, complies with the requirements of Sections 21 -300
and Section 21 -500 of the Zoning Ordinance. In particular, the proposal adheres
to the following criteria: a) the property currently has an existing small family
daycare facility and has sufficient interior and exterior space to accommodate four
additional children; b) the additional landscaping will provide a visual buffer to
adjacent properties; and c) the existing street width is sufficient to accommodate
the current traffic to the site, and the four additional car trips that will be
generated by parents picking up their children in the evening.
8
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — September 28, 1999
4. That the use, as conditioned, meets the intent of the California Child Day Care
Facilities Act by providing a family daycare facility in a residential neighborhood
in a home environment.
The proposed expansion of an existing daycare facility does not fundamentally or
substantially alter the use of the residence in which the daycare facility exists or
'the neighborhood as a whole.
Use Permit Conditions
All requirements of the Building Division shall be met, including:
a. The applicant shall contact the Building Division for plan and code
requirements.
2. All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met prior to:
a. This is an existing licensed and permitted facility. Any additional
requirements will be determined at the time of an on -site fire inspection.
3. All requirements of the Planning Department shall be met, including:
a. This approval is valid for the addition of four children at this location, for
a total of twelve children at 625 "C" Street. Should the applicant wish to
increase the number of children at this location, she must first apply to
amend this Conditional Use Permit.
b. Within 30 days after approval of the Conditional Use Permit, or no later
than October 28, 1999, staff shall inspect the landscaping to determine
adequacy of screening. If deemed necessary, the applicant must submit a
landscape plan for the property for review and approval by the Planning
Department showing additional trees and shrubs must be plan along the
east and -southeffl property lines to provide screening to neighboring
properties if 1
th . d
ns .,,.ea d + e lo o„+ +
�.,., ��c- apit�e�-- be- c�s+
a >7 is th � + d �
we�tllC S�- �- b6n� 'rrrcri e T �= li s ts the cv sr vfrrr�rcefiitt .��uir�z ritl3or to
install the baFFieF, and a $30.00 administr-atien fee, shall be eellected-by
the Planning Dep er+ if the Planning DepaFtmentr has not acei Ved this
inf b this dat e, th Dl n �� a1z ent can begin prvveedings
Landscaping shall be installed in a timely fashion.
C. Within 30 days after receiving approval of the Conditional Use Permit, or
no later than October 28, 1999, the applicant shall submit a revised site
plan for review and approval of the Planning Department that indicates the
location of recreation equipment (exceeding eight feet in height) in any
yard area intended for day care use. The site plan shall clearly illustrate
9
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — September 28, 1999
that the equipment is a minimum of five feet from all property lines. At all
times, the daycare provider shall keep the recreation equipment a
minimum distance of five feet from perimeter property lines.
d. The large family daycare facility shall comply with applicable building
and fire code provisions, with applicable Building Codes, Fire Code
standards adopted by the State and administered by the City Fire Marshal,
and with Social Services Department licensing requirements (California
Administrative Code, Title 22, Division 2).
e. Within 30 days after receiving approval of the Conditional Use Permit, or
no later than October 28, 1999, the applicant shall submit .a revised site
plan for review and approval by the Planning Department that indicates
the location of at least three off - street automobile parking spaces, one of
which may be provided in a garage or carport. These may include spaces
already provided to fulfill residential parking requirements.
f. Within 30 days after receiving approval of the Conditional Use Permit, or
no later than October 28, 1999, the applicant shall submit a written
statement, for review and approval of the Planning Department, that
clearly demonstrates that drop -off and pick -up of children at a proposed
day care home shall be staggered.
g. Noise generated from the proposed day care home must not exceed
established standards and policies as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
General net—te exceed-r d 6 0 as d outs e
.h - +
a. vi r a� v n. P. 013— E y .
h. The use permit for large family day care shall be reviewed after one year
by the Director to identify and achieve mitigation of any adverse
conditions related to the day care activities' conformance to these Zoning
Ordinance regulations. The Director may mitigate problems related to
noise, traffic, parking, and code violations by imposing new conditions,
such as limiting hours of operation, requiring installation of solid fencing,
subsequent or periodic review, etc., at his /her direction. The Director shall
give notice of this review to owners and residents of property immediately
adjacent to the large family day care to allow at least ten days for
comment.
The facility will be operated in a manner, which will not adversely affect
adjoining residences.
The number of children playing outside at one time shall b e li ited t o �
xifflafn 0€ °;,5Tv "* a O ne *im° Additionally The daycare owner shall
supervise the level of activity on the property and pr -event and pr
10
of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — September 28, 1999
discourage and manage banging, screaming or other loud noises that are
controllable with adult supervision.
k. The applicant /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,
commission, 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.
III. LIAISON REPORTS.
- City Council (MH) — Allocations.
- SPARC (DG) — Proposed ballfield and public storage.
- Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee (WV) — None given.
- Tree Advisory Committee (TB) — Planting on Prospect Street.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:25PM
s\pc- pi an\rninutes/0928
11