HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/26/1999City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — October 26, 1999
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 plannin2(iki.petaluma ca.us
Web Page http: / /www.ci_petaluma.ca.us
1
2 Planning Commission Minutes
3 October 26, 1999, 7:00 PM
4
5 Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Bennett *, Broad, Feibusch, Glass, Healy, Vieler
6
7 * Chairperson
8
9 Staff: Hans Grunt, Associate Planner
1 o Jane K. Thomson, Senior Planning Technician
IV)
13 Roll Call
14 Pledge of Allegiance
15 Approval Of Minutes: Minutes of September 28, 1999 were approved with
16 corrections.
17 Public Comment: Geoff Cartwright — 56 Rocca :Drive— Concerned with the fill
i s placed behind Adobe Lumber (realizes it is in the County) — concerns regarding flooding.
19 Director's Report: No second meeting in November.
20 Commissioners' Report: Reminder of upcoming Sonoma State Planning
21 Commissioner's Seminar (December 4, 1999).
22 Correspondence: Proposed Year 2000 Meeting Schedule; memo from staff
23 regarding December 14, 1999 joint Central Petaluma Specific Plan meeting.
24 Appeal Statement: Was read.
25 Legal Recourse Statement: Was noted on the agenda.
26
27
28 NEW BUSINESS:
29 PUBLIC HEARING:
30
31 I. PETALUMA VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH REZONING; 580 Sonoma
32 Mountain Parkway; AP NO. 136- 120- 075(ib).
33
34 Rezone a 3.31 acre parcel from Planned Community District (PCD) to Planned
35 Unit District (PUD) to expand the existing church facilities and allow for
a
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — October 26, 1999
1 construction of a one -story classroom building and future construction of a multi -
2 purpose /recreation hall.
3
4 Hans Grunt presented the staff report.
5
6 The public hearing was opened.
7
8 SPEAKERS:
9
10 Commissioner Broad — Any more information regarding parking adequacy?
I 1 Hans Grunt - Discussed with Traffic Engineer — parking adequate.
t2 Commissioner Healy — Adequacy of parking layout? Entrance on Sonoma Mountain
13 Parkway ok?
14 Hans Grunt — All ok per Allan Tilton.
15 Charleen Wardlow — (Church Building Committee Chair) — introduced members of
16 "church family "; history on project (purchased property in 1966; 1988 completed existing
17 facilities; built completely by membership, completely paid for, 1995 built sanctuary;
18 would like to start construction in Spring of 2000; classrooms, multi -use buildings;
19 existing' facilities not adequate, existing facilities will be upgraded; proposed pre- school;
20 200 families are members of church; thanked Planning staff, especially Irene Borba;
21 satisfied with proposed conditions of approval.
22 Edward Napp — 561 Almanor — Directly behind church; has looked at plans, read report;
23 many neighbors did not know about this proposal; many concerns from adjacent
24 neighorhood; main concerns noise generated by new uses; noise echoes from surrounding
25 fences; this use is in our backyard — 20 feet to proposed playground; visual factor of
26 doubling size of structure, will interfere with resale of existing houses; open space around
27 church was supposed to be left empty; concerns with parking adequacy; last Sunday,
28 parking spaces were all full, will park on Rainier Circle, Sonoma Mountain Parkway
29 will park in our neighborhood, not enough parking now; Traffic Engineer has not gone to
30 site on Sunday to look at parking adequacy; recreation center will be in his back yard; by
31 definition, noisy; when church was built, there were no neighbors, now there are; have
32 meeting of neighbors and church to make modifications to what is planned to ensure
33 good neighbor relationship is maintained; church members do not live in neighborhood.
34 Commissioner Vieler — (to Mr. Napp) How long have you lived in neighborhood?
35 Edward Napp — 5 1 /2 years, church was constructed at time; real estate agent indicated no
36 more construction would be allowed, that lot would be paved for parking, no new
37 construction was planned; the trees that are proposed will not provide noise reduction.
38 Commissioner Barrett — Did you receive letter from Pastor in October?
39 Edward Napp — Maybe, probably did not read letter (probably would have thought it
40 was "junk" mail ".
41 Greg Brown — 1749 Rosemond St. — Went to Open House at church, glad to have
42 opportunity; only concern is with noise — does not hear noise from inside buildings; noise
43 can be heard outside — on "teen" meeting nights, there is noise; pattern has been more
44 activities at night, more noise in parking lot; church has been very responsive; good
45 neighbors, some frustrations, hopefully can be worked out.
46 Geoff Cartwright — 56 Rocca Drive — Mr. Napp mentioned information obtained from
47 realtor was not accurate — this is a recurring problem.
2
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - October 26, 1999
1 Philip Eggleston - 1745 Brompton — Didn't receive notice, church good neighbors, came
2 over to explain what was planned, trees behind house (redwoods), church indicates they
3 will be cut down, original plan was only for a school, now a recreation center is proposed
4 with windows looking into his backyard — originally only skylights were proposed, now
5 there will be windows, where are our rights regarding noise; has called several times
6 regarding noise (teenagers nights), church and neighborhood should have a meeting;
7 what will happen to birds, animals living in trees if they are cut down? Neighborhood
s rights should be considered.
9 Chair Bennett — clarification — Would tonight's approval include recreation center or
10 just classroom?
11 )`Inns Grunt - Yes, recreation center design would not be approved, only classroom
12 building/use.
13 Commissioner Broad — Are we approving land use only tonight?
14 Fans Grunt — Only land use, not architecture, parking adequacy (of Recreation center).
15 Commissioner Healy — Looking at site that provides full build -out, is staff anticipating
16 parking adequacy review at a later date?
17 Hans Grunt — Traffic Engineer has determined parking adequacy; with SPARC review
18 of recreation building, traffic adequacy will be reviewed; additional sq.ft. of recreation
19 hall would be reviewed.
20 Commissioner Feibusch — Walked site — will sanctuary be enlarged in future?
21 Charleen Wardlow - Parking is based on design, everything that could be built on site is
22 shown on site plan.
23 Edward Napp — Confused about what is being decided this evening; Irene Borba
24 indicated that what is being decided tonight would include foundation for recreation
25 center.
26 Hans Grunt — No foundation plans proposed — only to determine parking adequacy.
27 Pam Smith — 1737 Rosemond — Biggest issue is noise factor — concern is noise from
28 proposed recreation hall; reasonable hours of operation should be conditioned; are
29 classrooms to be built for Sunday School or will there be a daytime school there? Church
30 has been a good neighbor.
I Charleen Wardlow - All grading and site drainage would be installed, including
32 engineered pad for recreation facility; preschool only proposed between sanctuary,
33 maximum number of students 24; re: noise issue — no events later than 9PM; redwoods
34 will be removed, but new building will muffle noise more than trees; has had two open
35 house /information meetings at church.
36 Chair Bennett — Will redwoods be removed? (answer yes); hours of preschool?
37 Charleen Wardlow — Day care (preschool only); windows higher in building to allow
38 light.
39 Commissioner Healy — One -story classroom building — will height of building create a
40 "tunnel" effect?
41 Charleen Wardlow — Design will duplicate existing building.
42 Commissioner Barrett — Will weddings continue to take place where they do now, or
43 will they move back into multi- purpose room?
44 Charleen Wardlow — Kitchen in multi - purpose will be small, weddings will probably
45 not be held in back buildings because of this.
46 Hans Grunt — Applicant has proposed hours of operation, can be added as a condition.
47
48 Public hearing was closed.
3
of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — October 26, 1999
2 Commissioner Broad — Complex item, church did a good job on proposal, neighbors did
3 a good job on voicing concerns; ultimately this project can be approved, would like to see
4 more reworking, meeting with neighbors and church should be held, staff report not
5 "tight enough, conditions need to include issues raised; noise issue major concern —
6 hours of operation, uses allowed should be conditioned — work through some specific
7 items mentioned tonight — weddings, etc., time frames; consider outdoor use, amplified
s music allowed or not ?; tighten conditions after meeting with staff /neighbors /church; more
9 information needed from staff regarding parking adequacy — wants more feedback from
to Traffic Engineer, look at list of uses, not enough in staff report to be comfortable with
I 1 parking, adequacy; drainage adequacy?
12 Craig Spaulding — Described drainage into Lynch Creek, adequacy was designed into
13 planning of Sonoma Mountain Parkway.
14 Commissioner Broad — SPARC would only focus on adequacy of design, siting of
15 multi - purpose building and use would be approved with this Zoning change, not a lot.of
16 landscaping proposed, more landscaping should be required in back parking area.
17 Commissioner Glass — Agreed with Commissioner Broad's analysis; tonight several
18 questions have been answered; with more communication, many other issues will be
19 eliminated; concerns with noise and hours of operation; knows church is concerned with
20 being a. good neighbor; sensitive to neighbors living in close proximity to this proposal;
21 church could adjust schedule to break up earlier; one more opportunity for neighbors,
22 church, staff to get together for more information exchange; agrees with Mr. Cartwright's
23 statement of information given by realtors, maybe there should be a City Ordinance; one
24 more meeting would be beneficial.
25 Commissioner Healy — Valid points brought up by other Commissioners; very close,
26 would be willing to pass this on to Council for approval; concerns with statements made
27 by real estate agents; general point regarding size of parking lot, church plans to add
28 more services, more times as congregation grows, concerns with "tunnel" effect of
29 building near property line, church is responsive to neighborhood concerns, maybe
3o driveway on Sonoma Mountain Parkway should be moved (could wait until recreation
31 building goes to SPARC), notice does not talk about pre - school or school proposal;
32 neighbors should be able to be given more information on this; PUD Standards propose
33 principle permitted use of full -blown school; should require an additional CUP — this
3=I document needs to be reviewed and tightened; concerns with layout of site, tree issues.
35 Commissioner Vieler — Supports continuing this item for more conversation with
36 neighbors, church, staff would like recreation facility split from this proposal for further
37 Commission review, real estate issue is a valid one — legislation should be added to
38 correct what is being said; classroom hours — any intention of being a full -time use?
39 Charleen Wardlow — Sonoma County original approval only allows a limited pre -
0 school.
41 Commissioner Vieler — Why are redwoods being removed?
42 Charleen Wardlow — Trees would take up about half of the space of proposed
43 classroom.
44 Commissioner. Vieler — Clarification of deeding property to homeowners?
45 Fans Grunt — Applicant could probably clarify.
46 Commissioner Vieler — Confused by this item in staff report.
47 Charleen Wardlow — There was a confusion, existing fence is on property line.
48 Commissioner Vieler — Why is parking tied only to sanctuary?
4
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — October 26, 1999
I Chair Bennett — Other uses will be taking place at other times than sanctuary use, this
2 hasn't been adequately analyzed.
3 Flans Grunt — Staff, applicant, Traffic Engineer need to do more analysis.
4 Commissioner Barrett — Should be continued, details need to be worked out first;
5 concerns with parking in back — lots of cars already parking even in undeveloped state —
6 back area is where noise will occur, biggest potential problem; other concern — what will
7 hours of pre - school be? Hours need to be listed; amplification in general should be
8 discussed; additional landscaping should be required.
9 Commissioner Feibusch — Project can be successful, church property surrounded by
10 residential (mostly two -story) dwellings, landscaping, lighting, noise — three major
11 concerns; needs to have a final SPARC approval, not just existing Preliminary SPARC —
12 should return to SPARC, especially lighting and landscaping; concerns should be
13 resolved and then SPARC and Planning Commission meetings should be scheduled.
14. Chair Bennett — Any reason final SPARC review was not done? Staff's opinion was that
15 SPARC would be happy with this plan? Project Planner and Traffic Engineer should be
16 here tonight; conditions are not specific enough; does not need to go back to SPARC;
17 does not have a problem with this project, conditions need to be tightened up; should be
18 another meeting with neighbors; cannot tie answers together tonight.
19 Commissioner's Healy and Glass — Believed this item should return to Planning
20 Commission and City Council only; Commissioner Broad — Felt project should return to
21 SPARC after Planning Commission and Council; Commissioner Feibusch — Project
22 should return to SPARC; Commissioner Vieler — SPARC should look at sound barrier,
23 etc.; Commissioner Barrett — Project should go back to Planning Commission, not
24 SPARC.
25
26. Staff, Church, neighbors will get together and then return to Planning Commission -
27 public hearing closed (unless there are substantial changes); new meeting date will be
28 renoticed.
29
30 Main issues to address: parking analysis (traffic engineer); noise issues (time schedules
31 included as zoning standards); noise abatement; limited number of pre - school students
32 (conditional use), lighting/landscaping staff work with neighbors /church; trash enclosure
33 location; look at use of front parking lot (instead of rear) for night uses; Traffic Engineer
34 needs to be present at next meeting.
35
36
37 COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
38
39 II. CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES.
=40
41 Chair Bennett - Sign Ordinance; illegal sandwich boards — all need to be regulated
42 equally; sandwich boards are multiplying — not being enforced; problem is if everyone
43 violates ordinance, nobody wins; purpose of an Ordinance is to regulate signage,
44 everything is in balance, everybody has a level playing field, smaller signs work for the
45 benefit of everybody. What happens is when one business starts violating, they get away
46 with some impact, because they are the only business on the block that has bigger and
47 more proliferation of signs than anybody else and so that's a direct invitation to
49 everybody else to go out and do the same. Sandwich boards — if one or two businesses
5
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - October 26, 1999
1 start doing it, if it's not being enforced, in a sense they probably do have a right to do
2 that. Jane Thomson is the unofficial code enforcement officer. Sign Ordinance probably
3 was adopted in the mid -80's, early 80's, after a lot of debate /work, there was finally an
4 Ordinance that everybody could agree on. What I'm seeing now, is essentially we don't
5 have the staff to enforce this. My concern is it's going to get to a point where we're
6 going to have to call in the Marines to get this back. Jane, do you have any comments on
7 that?
8
9 Jane Thomson — When 1 started working for the City, I had a small box under my desk
to of abatements, and ten years later we have six filing cabinet drawers full. When the
I1 Planning Department gets complaints regarding anything, the complaint is logged, an
12 inspection is made. One of the most rampant problems we've got, and I agree, are the
13 signs that are in the public right -of -way; those could be a life - safety problem because if
14 somebody is walking along the sidewalk and falls over the sign, there's a problem. A lot
15 of different departments get involved when it come to signs.
16
17 Chair Bennett — It's your policy, is it not, that you only act when you have received a
18 complaint?
19
20 Jane Thomson — That's right, we don't go shopping for violations. The City Council
21 directed us in 1992 to respond to complaints, and not to go looking for violations.
22
23 Chair Bennett — I think my concern, and I guess basically, where I'm heading is the
24 policy realm, but we could make a recommendation to the Council, is that we have. a
25 problem, I personally think the City should have some regulatory ... if you're going to put
26 emphasis on the Ordinance, and say you can't do this, the City should have at least some
27 regulatory function to go in and make people stop doing some of the almost blatant
29 violations. If nothing else, a cease and desist letter as a minimum. And we're not doing
29 that, we've never done that.
30
31 Jane Thomson — That is correct. I found out several different things in the last several
32 days. One is that gas stations (on an annual basis) are sent, by the end of the year, a
33 packet from the gasoline producers (Chevron, Shell, etc.) that says, these are the signs
34 they must put out during the year — the same thing happens with fast food restaurants.
35 These owners are caught in the middle — they want to comply with what we say, yet if
36 they don't do what they are told by the corporate owners, they get into trouble. So, if we
37 regulate one gas station, we have to do them all because they are all regulated. The other
39 response is that, we haven't done an "en masse" mailing to all gas stations and all fast
39 food restaurants for five or six years.
10
41 Wayne Vieler (speaking as a business owner (5 years) — One of the most difficult things
42 that he's had to deal with has been compliance with the Sign Ordinance. The amount of
43 space that is devoted to signage and the formulas that are used for it are very onerous in
as terms of being able to make a statement into the public eye to attract attention to your
45 business. For example, if you open some new function within your business and want to
46 notify the public of it, one of the best ways to do that would be to put up a banner or
47 something, a temporary sign. Regarding sandwich boards, many in town are quaint, they
48 have a great deal of character. If you drive down Petaluma Blvd. North, it's actually
6
C o P e t a l uma Planning Commission Minutes — October 26, 1999
t funny to see a figure on one side and then if you approach it from the opposite direction,
2 you are looking at the back of a character. It's one of these things where the non - strict
3 enforcement, and I realize that I am really taking an opposing view (that's one reason I
4 wanted to stand on this side of the podium), the non - enforcement of some of these things
5 actually makes it possible to conduct business in a reasonable manner. If everything was
6 regulated right on down the line, it would create some hardship, suggest that the Sign
7 Ordinance be brought forward for revision and possible restructuring in the way the
8 criteria is established. Lastly, regarding the issue in Santa Rosa where Hewlett- Packard
9 is not allowed to put a "tag" on their sign that associates the new business with Hewlett -
10 Packard, in some levels I think that City government should be respectful of business
1 I rights to conduct business because that's what they do best.
12
13 Chair Bennett — If everyone covered their buildings with banners and signs, the banners
14 and signs wouldn't work. If every business had one or two sandwich boards out in front,
15 none of them would work because everybody is doing it. The reason for an Ordinance is
16 to have a level playing field. We've seen cities where it's the ugliest environment you
17 could ever ask for because everyone has the biggest signs, more signs, all trying to out -do
18 the next guy and there is no control. The intent of the Sign Ordinance is ultimately to get
19 everyone to the same level. If the Sign Ordinance needs revising, I'm not opposed to
20 that, I'm saying that if you're not going to enforce the Sign Ordinance, should you not
21 enforce noise provisions in a conditional use permit — where's it going to stop? Non -
22 enforcement cannot be a policy of any government. If you're going to have it on the
23 books, it should be enforced. if it's unenforceable or if it's no longer part of the
24 community standards, then maybe it should be taken off the books. I cannot see any
25 justification for not enforcing the law and giving one business an advantage over another.
26
27 Commissioner Vieler — I do agree with you, I am actually very opposed to cluttering up
28 the landscape with billboards, etc., very much so. I guess I would like to say that you
29 scared me, and still do, with the idea of let's have this crack -down because I'm not saying
30 open it up and ignore it, but I'm also very concerned that how much we restructure for
31 example, the Sign Ordinance to where you have an opportunity to apply for a banner
32 across the front of your business for a three -week period to advertise this or that, out of
33 the regular structure, and other things, I'd be very concerned about seeing that sort of a
34 crack -down take place.
35
36 Commissioner Healy — I think this is a valuable discussion, I think both Commissioners
37 who have spoken so far have raised good points. I would agree that there is an increasing
38 expectation that the Sign Ordinance in particular is not being enforced. I would also
39 agree that there should be possible thought given to possible standardized exceptions to
40 discourage rule - breaking. Speaking as a Councilmember, I would be willing to revisit
41 the 1992 policy especially with respect to businesses where there has been a real pattern
42 of breaking the rules. If we have to go around town and talk to every gas station or every
43 fast food outlet, if that's the way it has to be done, that's fine. I think another issue you
44 will find at the Council level will be a concern that businesses should get a bill for the
45 enforcement, not just a letter to get them into compliance.
16
47 Hans Grunt — Water bill could include education on Sign Ordinance; web site, PCA,
48 etc., softer approach.
7
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — October 26, 1999
2 Chair Bennett — Bring issue to attention of Council, policy issue; there is a concern.
3
4 Commissioner Glass — Council could set example — duration/size of political signs, City
5 doesn't need to be burdened with these kinds of signs longer than necessary to conduct a
6 good, fair election; garage sale signs on utility poles need to be removed, they are left up
7 for weeks on end — a little off the subject, but if we're trying to clean up the City, we can
8 try to clean up our own act.
9
to Jane Thomson — Political signs are covered — whenever there is an election, a packet
1 l goes out to all candidates, signs are removed from utility poles by City staff.
12
13 Commissioner Broad — Detrimental to have ordinance on books not being enforced,
14 does not think this is the best point in time to ask staff to add this on to their list of things
15 to do, , but it warrants to be placed on a future to -do list, the City should be able to
16 enforce.
17
18 Chair Bennett —Don't want to overload staff,, but violations should be noted.
19
20 Hans Grunt — Planning Department is undertaking standardization of forms /standard
21 form letters, there might be an opportunity there for a standard letter.
22
23 Commissioner Vieler — Possible examination of Sign Ordinance — look for onerous
24 sections, look at in near future; Ordinance needs to be enforced.
25
26 Geoff Cartwright — Regarding code enforcement — concern regarding fill adjacent to
27 church on Blvd. N. (Gossage) — is this in City Limits? Permit? Near Denny's — in City
28 Limits?
29
30 Chair Bennett - Consider Code Enforcement Officer in future.
31
32
33 III. PROJECT UPDATES:
34
35 - Kodiak Jack's Honky Tonk - Successful meeting — problems
36 identified.
37 - Baker Street Bar and Grill — Appeal to City Council on November 15,
38 1999.
39
40 Chair Bennett — Would like to be kept informed of status of Ferrin/Allen matter.
41
42
43 IV. LIAISON REPORTS.
44
45 - City Council (MH) — November 10 special meeting regarding
46 Factory Outlet.
47 - SPARC (DG) — Planting project at PG &E, Corona Road.
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
11
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes — October 26, 1999
Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee (WV) - Draft
Bicycle Plan, very comprehensive, will be presented to Planning
Commission soon.
Tree Advisory Committee (TB) — Saturday Tree Planting
(Irwin, Payran), very successful planting effort — 51 trees planted,
sidewalk improvements.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:45 PM
s \pc -p I an\mi nutes\ 1026
9