HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/11/2000Planning Commission Minutes — January 11, 2000
p, z tr City of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
City Hall, 11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/7784301 / Fax 707/7784498
18 5 E -Mail plannin2�&&Detaluma.ca.us
Web Page httP: / /www.ci.petaluma.ca.us
1
2
Planning Commission Minutes
3
.January 11, 2000 a 7:00 PM
4
5
Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Bennett *, Broad, Cader- Thompson, Feibusch, Glass,
6
Vieler
.• 7
8
* Chairperson
9
10
Staff: Hans Grunt, Associate Planner
11
Pamela Tuft, Director of General Plan Administration
12
Irene Borba, Associate Planner
13
Jane Thomson, Senior Planning Technician
1 4
'15
16
Roll Call
t .
17
Pledge of Allegiance
18
Approval Of Minutes: Minutes of October 26 and November 9, 1999 were
19
approved as printed.
20
Public Comment: Geoff Cartwright — Spoke regarding flooding issues — attended
' 21
joint meeting with SCWA and City Council last night; water table concerns, diminishing
22
resources.
23
` 24
Director Deport: Welcome to new Council Representative Janice Cader-
25
Thompson / Thanks to Mike Healy for his service; Reminder of March 1 -3 League of
26
California Cities Annual Planners Institute; Pursuant to Chair Bennett's request regarding
27
the status of the Ferrin/Allen lawsuit with the City, in a recent conversation with the City
28
Attorney, the City has filed an answer to the complaint and is now in the process of
29
compiling the administrative record — at this point the lawsuit is in the initial stages of
30
litigation; will look into Commission indemnification — will supply written information
31
from City Attorney at next Planning Commission Meeting.
32
33
Commissioners' Report: Welcome to Janice Cader- Thompson.
34
Planning Commission Minutes —January 11, 2000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Correspondence: Various correspondence regarding Petaluma Valley Baptist
Church.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on agenda.
NEW BUSINESS:
PUBLIC HEARING:
(This item was agendized as Item 11.)
I. CELLAR CONNECTIONS; 765 Baywood Drive, Suite 327, APN 005-
060 -054; File No. PCN #99001.
Consideration of a request that a determination be made and finding(s)
forwarded to the Sate of California Alcoholic Beverage control (ABC) that
public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance of an ABC
license (Type 20 — off sale beer and wine) to Cellar connections to allow a
wholesale and limited service retail wine broker.
Jane Thomson presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Commissioner Broad — Can this be done administratively? (answer, no, City Council
appointed the Commission as the ruling body.)
Commissioner Vieler — Explain the ABC moratorium?
Jane Thomson — Per Attachment 5, a moratorium was imposed in 1995 to regulate
number of new licenses.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Feibusch and seconded by Commissioner Vieler to
find that public convenience or necessity will be served by the issuance of a Type 20
(beer and wine) Alcoholic Beverage Control License based on the findings and subject to
the following conditions:
Commissioner Barrett: Yes
Commissioner Broad: Yes
Commissioner Cader- Thompson: Yes
Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
Commissioner Glass: Yes
N
Planning Commission Minutes - January 11, 2000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Vieler: Yes
Chairperson Bennett: Yes
Findings for the Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity
1. The proposed use is a new State of California Alcoholic Beverage Control Type
20 (off -sale beer and wine) license within city limits which, pursuant to the State
of California Business and Professions Code Section 23817.7, is exempt from the
moratorium imposed by the State in 1995 which prohibited the issuance of new
licenses unless findings are made that public convenience or necessity will be
served. The Planning Commission has reviewed this proposal, and finds that this
license should be issued to Cellar Connections because:
a. The sale of wine by phone /mail/internet, in addition to the 165 sf retail
shop 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 phone /maiUinternet in addition to walk in
sales makes the business economically viable.
C. The sale of alcohol by Cellar Connections 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 8AM to 7PM Monday
through Friday, which will limit the potential for nuisances.
CEQA Finding
1. The Cellar Connections 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 exist.
Conditions
1. Hours of operation for the retail sales shall be limited to 8:00AM to TOOPM
Monday through Friday.
2. Per ABC regulations, no on -site tasting to consumers shall be permitted at any
time. Consumer tasting shall require application to the ABC for an amended
license, and a CUP from the City to allow the operation of an Alcoholic Beverage
Establishment.
3. 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 determination.
3
Planning Commission Minutes —January 11, 2000
1 4. This determination may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review and
2 approval at any time due to complaints regarding lack of compliance with
3 conditions of approval, noise generation, or other adverse operating
4 characteristics.
5
6 S. The applicants /developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or
7 any of its boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
9 action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or
9 employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when
10 such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable
11 State and /or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the
12 applicants /developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall
13 coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the
14 City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City
15 bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good
16 faith.
17
1s
19 CONTINUED BUSINESS:
20 PUBLIC HEARING:
21
22 (This item was agendized as Item I.)
23
24 11. PETALUMA VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH REZONING; 580 Sonoma
25 Mountain Parkway; AP No. 136 - 120- 075(ib).
26
27 (Continued from the Planning Commission Meeting of October 26,
28 1999.)
29
30 Consideration of an application to rezone a 3.31 acre parcel from Planned
31 Community District (PCD) to Planned Unit District (PUD) to expand the existing
32 church facilities and allow for construction of a one -story classroom building and
33 future construction of a multi - purpose /recreation hall. For this application, the
34 Planning Commission recommended action will be forwarded to the City Council.
35
36 Irene Borba presented the staff report.
37
38 The public hearing was continued.
39
40 SPEAKERS:
41
42 Chair Bennett — Concept of the classroom will be approved, not the final design.
43 Commissioner Barrett — Would our decision tonight to approve the PUD as proposed
44 allow the building of a multi - purpose room? (answer, yes.)
45 Charleen Wardlow — We did hold a neighborhood meeting; membership has doubled
46 since moving to this site; most members are families with children - late night gatherings
4
Planning Commission Minutes —January 11, 2000
1 don't happen very often will enclose breezeway for noise control if preschool is
2 established, it would not be a full school; weekday preschool won't be pursued at this
3 time; plans to develop this property have been known for 25 years; no proposed activities
4 that would violate any laws.
5 Commissioner Barrett — Do all events end by 9 PM (except the coffee shop which
6 closes at 10 PM on weekends)?
7 Commissioner Broad — (to Ms. Wardlow) — Would you accept Sunday through
8 Thursday hours of 9 PM? (answer, yes). What large "special events" would occur?
9 Charleen Wardlow — Events would be focused around religious holidays (Christmas,
10 Easter).
11 Commissioner Broad — Any plans to rent facilities to groups not affiliated with the
12 church? (answer, none); will there be amplified music?
13 Charleen Wardlow — Any amplified music would require a permit from the City — yM
14 infrequent
15 Commissioner Broad — When multi - purpose room is built, would uses change?
16 (answer, no, it would just provide more space).
17 Commissioner Glass — Concern with a full -blown daycare — is that no longer planned?
18 Was pre- school a big concern with neighborhood?
19 Charleen Wardlow — Yes, neighborhood concerns (noise), even though one neighbor
20 runs a daycare.
21 Commissioner Barrett - Concerned about noise from parking at night.
22 Charleen Wardlow — Proposed mitigation measures require parking be kept to front of
23 property at night.
24 Ed Napp — 561 Almanor Street — Not opposed to church as neighbor or what they are
25 trying to accomplish, scope of plans does not fit into neighborhood; PUD allows
26 intensive building opposed to zoning change; regarding General Plan consistency
27 scope of project not harmonious with setting — will decrease property values, very large
28 impact to neighborhood, issue with loss of views, feeling of space will be removed;
29 buildings will be used every day — imagine a 16' building that close; multi - purpose room
30 equivalent to building 16 houses on this lot; second building will be 20% larger than
31 existing building; views are only to rear of houses now, will completely destroy views;
32 parking up to his back fence; will not be harmonious with neighborhood; 90% of
33 structures built on 30 -40% of lot, and built to the rear, nearest adjacent homes; cars will
34 be parked within 12 feet of house — headlights will shine into houses; regarding proposed
35 landscaping — band -aid to hide what exists, if large redwood trees are planted, sunlight
36 will be blocked; parking lot lights will reflect up into the existing houses; will be a "full
37 moon" every night; visited some other churches in neighborhood — Church of Christ,
38 Catholic Church — Church of Christ has excellent design — visit to see how it should be
39 done, catholic church is older, but non - intrusive; Petaluma Valley Baptist Church does
40 not see neighborhood issues — neighborhood meeting was not what was expected —
41 church could not come up with any answers that would help neighbors; church held a
42 Christmas Festival — noise was loudest in 5 years, back parking lot was lighted with
43 halogen lights (5PM to 9 project needs to be scaled back 50 -60 %; 1,190 people
44 per week are currently using this site — number of people will double — much more noise
45 — will significantly change neighbors lives and land values; vote no — require redesign.
5
Planning Commission Minutes -January 11, 2000
1 Eric Moristen — 1753 Rosamond — Not opposed to church having events — Rosamond is
2 a very busy street; main concerns are noise (it is already noisy at night); think about this
3 from neighborhood point of view; neighborhood should not have to police church, many
4 summertime car washes where big speakers are set up — excessive noise; wouldn't want
5 massive structure behind his fence; main concern is noise, church members should see
6 neighbors point of view.
7 Commissioner Vieler — (to Mr. Moristen) Were you given any information regarding
s buildout of church when you bought the property?
9 Eric Moristen — Doesn't recall anything.
to David Christensen — Assistant Pastor — Church had a very good view of Sonoma
11 Mountain — didn't complain when homes went in blocking views; decide this issue on
12 facts, not exaggerations; shocking proposal made by Mr. Napp at neighborhood meeting
13 was that church should move; this expansion is for benefit of community.
14 Bill Hess — 313 Westridge — Member of congregation for 9 years; apologizes for noise,
15 fervor for expansion is to expand church family; church can learn to be better neighbor;
16 plan under consideration is reasonable.
17 Ross Robinson — 4 Jean Court — Has lived in house for 35 years; no longer has views of
18 Sonoma Mountain; does not worry about property values, worries about children;
19 neighbors sometimes aren't caring; church making every effort to be good neighbor;
20 think twice in defying "his" plans; look at this from standpoint of young people.
21 John Giesea — 1729 Rosamond — Main concern is parking; does not agree with parking
22 studies; this lot will be over - built; opposes plan for that reason.
23 Tom Markem — 1446 Dandelion — Senior Pastor — New at church — still getting to know
24 neighbors and community; church well known all around Petaluma; has only received
25 good responses — well deserved community reputation; wants to be good neighbor;
26 church impacts community in many ways — donates much money to a broad scope of
27 people; recognize far - reaching motivation — more efficient /greater impact on community.
28 David McCarthy — 1745 Rosamond — Concerns are with intent of church; last meeting
29 was given very short notice (postmarked one week before meeting); most of noise
30 directed towards his house; questions whether permit was granted for amplified music
31 recently — repetitive music was being played (very invasive), music was turned down at
32 8:30 PM after complaints; questioned church sincerity — parking mitigations are not being
33 followed now; consider staff report regarding schedule of events — meetings are held six
34 nights a week, sounds are equivalent to a party six nights a week; parking lot lights shine
35 into bedrooms; not enough sleep for a child; require reduced hours of operation;
36 questioned objectivity of staff report — some portions of church report and City staff
37 report are verbatim; modify plans to make church a better neighbor; consider hours of
38 operation — reduce sound levels by restricting hours of operation to 8PM.
39 Greg Brown — 1749 Rosamond — Church members do much good for the community;
40 neighborhood meetings got off to a bad start; neighbors haven't had concerns addressed
41 adequately; neighbors concerns have been downplayed by staff report and church
42 members; two- thirds of neighbors have concerns; neighbors are mad — there should be a
43 meeting with a mediator solutions may make everyone happy, doesn't think neighbors
44 have really had a chance to be heard.
45 Cynthia Bates — 612 Nikki — Never knew of neighbors concerns with noise before last
46 Planning Commission meeting; enclosing breezeway will help with noise, educating
r
Planning Commission Minutes - January l 1. 2000
1 members to be good neighbors will help; education of youth is very important in this
2 town - church provides many things for youth to do, working on being good neighbors.
3 Pam Smith - 1737 Rosamond - Church does good for community; was not told of
4 expansion when she purchased home, felt hopeful after last Planning Commission
5 meeting, felt positive; neighborhood meeting (short notice) no specifics were given; no
6 set hours, no give and take; began to feel more uncomfortable after that meeting; worried
7 about noise levels, property values, not comfortable with church proposal; haven't gotten
8 to point of being comfortable as a neighbor; concerns with noise, hours, events, etc.,
9 wants assurances.
10
11 The public hearing was closed.
12
13 Commission Discussion
14
15 Allan Tilton - Parking ratio was reviewed - proposed parking exceeds requirements; no
16 difficulties now at site; parking proposed to be doubled; existing parking lot
17 configuration adequate for site /vehicle circulation.
18 Commissioner Broad - (to Allan Tilton) - Did you look at parking for church use?
19 Allan Tilton - This proposal well exceeds standards by Institute of Traffic Engineers for
20 church use.
21 Commissioner Vieler - Safety of existing driveway.
22 Allan Tilton - There have been no collisions, no safety deficiencies; relocation of
23 driveway would cause fire access problems, moving driveway would create more linear
24 drive with more chance for speeding; attempts to slow down speeding such as speed
25 bumps, could also increase noise.
26 Commissioner Broad - Is width between parking spaces adequate? (answer from A.
27 Tilton, yes). Were windows for classroom addition proposed at SPARC?
28 Dan Kallenbach - Project Architect - Yes, windows were a proposal at SPARC; original
29 design was done by LeRoy Bean, this is an expanded design concept to the original
30 proposal; project has an "architectural idea "; moving driveway would affect this idea of a
31 linear approach to define focus to the central sanctuary.
32 Commissioner Broad - Regarding parking lot design - any thought to double- loading
33 travel. isle on eastern side?
34 Dan Kallenbach - No, haven't looked at any other design for parking lot.
35 Commissioner Broad - Considered not having any parking spaces against the fence?
36 Possibly room to shift parking along easterly boundary to center of rear parking lot and
37 move travel lane, this could help to eliminate headlights against the fence; will parking
38 lot lighting be on a timer?
39 Dan Kallenbach - Lighting would be on a timer lights would have to be manually
40 adjusted.
41 Commissioner Broad - If there were no windows on south elevation of the classroom,
42 what would need to be changed?
43 Dan Kallenbach -There would be no natural light and ventilation.
44 Commissioner Glass - How do operable windows affect noise? (answer - Noise could
45 be a significant problem with operable windows.)
46 Janice Cader- Thompson - Concerns with reflected lighting from parking lot lighting.
7
Planning Commission Minutes — January 11, 2000
1 Dan Kallenbach - Could discuss minimal lighting with consultants.
2 Chair Bennett - Would like more information regarding design of lights.
3 Commissioner Feibusch - Questions regarding adequacy of landscape screening on
4 south side of property.
5 Stephanie McCallister - (project Landscape Architect) - Not much room between
6 building and fence; plant material proposed grows to an evergreen hedge, 15 -20 feet if
7 unpruned; fast growing materials (10 -12 feet) would allow large scale trees; there could
8 be an issue (of shading) to adjacent homes; flexible as to what neighbors would want
9 adjacent to their lots. - - - -
10 Commissioner Broad - Planting area to south of classroom will result in screening of
11 walls up to roofline?
12 Stephanie McCallister - Yes, especially if not pruned; hedge grows rapidly; (presented
13 growth numbers on plant materials) - hedge grows about 2 ft. per year (12 feet in 5
14 years); maple would be 25 feet in 5 years.
15 Commissioner Cader- Thompson - Would like you to work with neighbors to fit
16 plantings into existing planting schemes.
17 Stephanie McCallister - The church has encouraged neighbors to work with her; will
18 plant trees in neighbor's yards if there is an opportunity to do so.
19 Commissioner Vieler - At the last meeting the multi -use room was requested to be
20 removed from plan - how would parking be affected?
21 Irene Borba - Does not remember that interpretation to delete at this time.
22 Commissioner Vieler - What was staff assessment of soundwall situation? This hasn't
23 been addressed.
24 Irene Borba - Staff relied on applicant's information regarding soundwalls.
25 Commissioner Broad - Are elevations required for PUD approval?
26 Irene Borba - Design can come back for SPARC approval later.
27 Commissioner Cader- Thompson - Are we locked into ingress /egress direction for the
28 multi -use room?
29 Irene Borba - Described circulation pattern.
30 Commissioner Broad - Regarding Zoning Ordinance PUD requirements - there is a
31 lack of information on the multi - purpose room (could have largest impact on
32 neighborhood), would like more information on this building, at least perspective
33 drawings; either take action excluding multi - purpose room or come back with elevation
34 drawing - not prepared to approve without more information; with- intensification of use
35 of site, impacts on neighborhood intensifies - the coffeehouse could operate to 10 PM on
36 Saturday night, rest of the week 8 -8:30 PM should be maximum; should return for
37 SPARC review for parking revisions; regarding windows on classroom - distance to
38 property lines is pushing envelope - minimize impact through landscaping and south
39 windows; SPARC should look at lighting in parking lot, landscaping plan; trash
40 enclosure too close to property line - should have greater setback and more planting in
41 this area; mediation might be a good idea, not enough information on soundwall -
42 SPARC should review adequacy of soundwalUfence; approval should include working
43 that limits facilities to church sponsored events; SPARC should look at limiting lighting
44 to hours of operation; areas of parking lot could be shut down when use of facilities is
45 light.
8
Planning Commission Minutes — January 11. 2000
1 Commissioner Glass — Agreed with Commissioner Broad's comments; volunteered to
2 sit as mediator ultimately something will be built here, it was the responsibility of
3 realtors who sold adjacent properties to disclose future building plans; limited hours of
4 operation is reasonable expectation, schedule could be limited to 8 PM; classroom
5 windows should be inoperable; disappointed in elimination of pre - school; find a way to
6 work out problems; not ready to move forward — attitudes are not right.
7 Commissioner Cader- Thompson — Visited church site, visited neighborhood, concerns
8 with multi - purpose hall — lighting, gate to block back parking area when not needed are
9 good ideas; where will cars park when there are overflow events? Concerns with
10 soundwall design — not enough information; reduce hours of operation to minimize
11 impacts; will storage containers now on site be removed? (answer, yes); windows should
12 not be operable work with neighbors on landscaping preschool limited to half -day, could
13 benefit neighborhood.
14 Commissioner Vieler — Commended all who spoke; timer for parking lot lights and
15 moving parking away from fence are good ideas and should be looked at by SPARC;
16 don't give approval for multi -use room (only footprint); restrict hours; windows should
17 be inoperable toward property line — operable on opposite side; soundwall question
18 should go to SPARC, restrict facilities to use of church sanctioned events, supports pre-
19 school.
20 Commissioner Barrett — Agrees with other Commissioners; isn't sure she is even in
21 favor of multi -use foot -print approval; concerns with over - building of site, lighting
22 concerns — should go to SPARC; south- facing windows should be fixed; preschool is a
23 great idea, check with Fire Department regarding gate to close parts of parking area.
21 Commissioner Feibusch — Concerns regarding landscaping/lighting; major concern is
25 noise — responsibility for noise control should fall on church; limit hours to 8 -8:30 PM.
26 Chair - Bennett — SPARC should review landscaping, fencing, parking, lighting; church
a 27 should self - police noise supports limiting hours.
28 Commissioner Broad — (summarized concerns)
29 ® Hours — 8PM maximum Sunday through Thursday — IOPM maximum on Friday
30 and Saturday.
31 ® Limit use to those sanctioned by church.
32 O SPARC should look at parking lot design, feasibility of closing off parking areas
33 when not needed.
34 ® SPARC should look at parking lot lighting/timer.
35 ® SPARC should look at landscaping.
36 • Classroom windows to be inoperable on south side.
37 ® Multi- purpose room not part of this approval — must be approved by subsequent
38 PUD approval..
39
40 A motion was made by Commissioner Broad and seconded by Commissioner Barrett to
41 recommend to the City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, approval
42 of a PUD Rezoning request and Planned Unit Development Plan based on the findings
43 and subject to the following amended conditions.
44
45 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
46 Commissioner Broad: Yes
9
Planning Commission Minutes — January 11, 2000
1 Commissioner Cader- Thompson: Yes
2 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
3 Commissioner Glass: Yes
4 Commissioner Vieler: Yes
5 Chairperson Bennett: Yes
6
7 Findings for Adoption of a Mitigated Negativ "e Declaration
8
9 1. That based upon the Initial Study, potential impacts resulting from the project
10 have been identified. Mitigation measures have been proposed and agreed to by
11 the applicant as a condition of project approval that will reduce potential impacts
12 to less than significant. In addition, there is no substantial evidence that supports
13 a fair argument that the project, as conditioned and mitigated, would have a
14 significant effect on the environment.
15
16 2. That the project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined
17 in the State Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, and is
18 exempt from Fish and Game filing fees because it is proposed on an existing
19 developed site surrounded by urban development with none of the resources as
20 defined in the Code.
21
22 3. That the project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List
23 compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government
24 Code.
25
26 4. That the Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study and considered public
27 comments before making a recommendation on the project.
28
29 5. That a Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to ensure compliance
30 with the adopted mitigation measures.
31
32 6. That the record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for
33 public review at the City of Petaluma Planning Department, City Hall, 11 English
34 Street, Petaluma, California.
35
36 Rezoning to Planned Unit District
37
38 1. That the Planned Unit District will result in a more desirable use of land and a
39 better physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning
40 district or combination of zoning districts. The proposed Amendment to Zoning
41 Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., to classify and rezone a 3.31 -acre parcel of
42 Assessor's Parcel No. 136 - 120 -075, to PUD — Planned Unit District is in
43 conformity with the Petaluma General Plan. The project as proposed provides a
44 plan to the future uses of the site.
45
in
Planning Commission Minutes — January 11, 2000
1 2. That the proposed rezoning to PUD is consistent with the provisions of Article
2 19A, Planned Unit District, of the Zoning Ordinance. The public necessity,
3 convenience and general welfare clearly permit and will be furthered by the
4 proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, reclassifying and rezoning the site
5 to PUD.
6
7 3. That the PUD is proposed on property which has a suitable relationship to one or
8 more thoroughfares, and that said thoroughfares are adequate to carry any
9 additional traffic generated by the development. The subject property has a
to suitable relationship to one or more thoroughfares (Sonoma Mountain Parkway,
11 East Washington Street and Rainer Avenue) and said thoroughfares are adequate
12 to carry any additional traffic generated by the development.
13
14 4. That the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, will not be detrimental to
15 the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City, and will be in keeping
16 with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations of the City and with the
17 General Plan.
18
19 5. Adequate available public and private spaces are design on the PUD Development
20 Plan. Through mitigation measures and project conditions, adequate building
21 setbacks and other project amenities are provided.
22
23 6. The Petaluma Valley Baptist Church expansion project as designed will be
24 compatible with the surrounding residential uses.
25
26 Adoption of PUD Development Standards
27
29 1. That the PUD Development Standards (Attachment 6) allow for the continued
29 operation of the existing uses, and will result in more appropriate and compatible
30 uses in the district. The PUD Development Standards allow for expansion of the
31 existing church facilities and provides for future expansion of the site.
32
33 2. That the plan for the proposed development presents a unified and organized
- 34 arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to
35 adjacent or nearby properties, and that adequate landscaping and/or screening is
36 included to ensure compatibility. Adequate public and private spaces are
37 designed on the PUD Development Plan. The project as conditioned and through
38 mitigation measures provide adequate building setbacks and other amenities such
39 as an extensive landscaping plan which includes a variety of trees, shrubs and
40 groundcover to enhance the site.
41
42 3. That the proposed project has complied with the requirements of CEQA through
43 the preparation and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for
44 this project, which addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with
45 its development. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, staff conducted an Initial
46 Study and identified potential environmental impacts, which included noise,
11
Planning Commission Minutes — January 11, 2000
1 visual quality & aesthetic, and transportation /traffic. Mitigation measures have
2 been agreed to by the applicant and are herein incorporated into the approval of
3 the project.
4
5 NOTICE OF ESTMIATED FEES, DEDICATIONS, AND OTHER EXACTIONS
6
7 Pursuant to Section 66020 of the California Government Code, the applicant/developer
s has the statutory right to protest development fees, dedication and reservation
9 requirements, and other exactions included in this project approval, and listed as follows
to (calculations based on — 19,640 square foot addition)
11
12 ® sewer connection: Existing.
13 9 water connection: Contact Water Field Office @ 778 -4392 to
14 determine adequacy of existing meter.
15 • community facilities development: $17,283 (19,640 square feet x $.88 /sq.ft.).
16 ® storm drain: $10,330 (based on 50,000 square feet of new
17 impervious surface).
is o school facilities: Contact School District @ 778 -4621 for
19 quotation.
20 ® traffic mitigation: $51,437 (based on 19,640 square feet of
21 Office Uses). Advise applicant to contact
22 Allan Tilton, Traffic Engineer @ 778 -4438
23 for quotation specific to church/classroom
24 use.
25 Conditions of Approval
26
27 From the Planning Department:
28
29 1. All mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with approval of the Mitigated
30 Negative Declaration (Resolution N.C.S.) for the Petaluma Valley
31 Baptist Church project are incorporated herein by reference as conditions of
32 project approval.
33
34 2. This approval applies to the plans date stamped July 29, 1999, as approved by the
35 Council and as conditioned and /or modified.
36
37 3. This approval includes final site plan, landscaping and architectural review
38 approval of the PUD Development Plan, written PUD Development Standards
39 shall be shown on plans for building permit approval.
40
41 4. The footprint, site development, and elevations of the multipurpose hall are not a
42 part of this approval. Any proposal for a multi purpose hall shall return to
43 Planning Commission for a PUD Amendment. and its ^°"ifnete' lands "'"
44
45
46
12
'1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Planning Commission Minutes — January 11. 2000
5. The type of materials and colors shall be indicated on plans that are submitted to the
Planning Department for review and approval at the time of building permit
submittal.
6. All requirements of the Building Division, Fire Marshal, Engineering
Departments, Public Works Department (see Attachments, 11) and Sonoma
County Water Agency shall be met and reflected on plans submitted for
development permit issuance.
7. In accordance with the provisions of Petaluma's Municipal Code, the applicant
shall pay City Special Development Fees if applicable, including but not limited
to, the following: sewer connection, water connection, community facilities
development, storm drainage impact, school facilities and traffic mitigation fees
(see Attachment 1 l ).
8. The following mitigation measures shall be shown on plans submitted for
building permit and shall be reviewed by Planning staff:
® Signs will be placed on the fence around the property to remind the church
members to come and go quietly.
® A kiosk will be placed near the entrance of the parking lot advising members and
visitors where to park and reminding everyone to come and leave the property
quietly, especially at night and shall note that parking will be primarily directed to
the front lot whenever possible. Final parking lot design, including feasibility of
closing off of rear area of parking lot during times of low -lot use, a low light
glare lighting . design of the parking lot, adding more landscaping between
parking and property line (near dumpster), and the use of timers for lighting shall
be reviewed by SPARC.
m The breezeway between the administration building and the fellowship hall be
enclosed in glass to prevent noise from carrying out of that area to our neighbors'
backyards.
® The pavilion cover proposed for the new open courtyard will help to focus sound
toward Sonoma Mountain Parkway and away from the neighborhood.
a Landscaping adjacent to residential properties shall be reviewed by SPARC.
® Operable windows on classrooms shall not be permitted on residential side of
building (windows shall be "fixed ' ).
9. Hours of activities shall be limited to Sunday through Thursday, 8:00 PM
maximum; Friday and Saturday, 10:00 PM maximum. Use of the site shall be
limited to church affiliated uses. The use of a loudspeaker for any outside activity
shall require a permit under city regulations.
13
Planning Commission Minutes —January 11, 2000
1
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1.4
15
16
10. The applicant /developer 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 attach, 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.
From the Engineering Department:
11.
17
18
19
20
21
22 12
23
24
25
26 13
27
28
29
In response to item 9 of the letter dated July 29, 1999, from Charlene Wardlow,
proposed erosion and sediment control measures shall be included with the
previously submitted improvement plans prepared by the applicant's engineer.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the plan must be reviewed by the City of
Petaluma Engineering Department
Show the proposed location of the landscaping irrigation water meter on the
improvement plans. Recall that all work within the public right -of -way requires
an excavation permit from the City of Petaluma Public Works Department.
Water pressure calculations shall be required for this development verifying the
system adequacy for fir flows and domestic services.
30
31 III. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY
32 COUNCIL/PETALUMA DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION relative to
33 proposed Text Amendments to Subdivision VI.E. of the
3.1 Redevelopment Plan to provide clarification of terms, including the
35 maximum amount of bonded indebtedness and the maximum
36 amount of taxes that may be allocated, as follows:
37
38 1. finding that the proposed Text Amendments to the Redevelopment
39 Plan could not have a significant adverse effect on the
40 environment, therefore adoption of a Negative Declaration is
41 appropriate, and
42 2. finding that the proposed Text Amendment conforms to the
43 Petaluma General Plan; and
44 3. recommend approval and adoption of the proposed Amendments.
45
46 Pamela Tuft presented the staff report.
47
14
Planning Commission Minutes — January It. 2000
1
The public hearing was opened.
2
3
SPEAKERS:
4
5
Commissioner Feibusch — Who makes up the PCDC? (answer, City Council).
6
Commissioner Glass — Defining revenues? Will we ever spend $80 Million?
7
Chair Bennett — Concerns that this didn't go through Planning?
8
Pamela "Tuft — There was no Planning staff available with redevelopment experience
9
to undertake completion of the environmental review at this time.
10
Chair Bennett — Why couldn't it wait for Planning staff? Being prepared by the
11
General Plan Administrator implies an impact to the General Plan.
.12
Pamela Tuft — Redevelopment has been managed by the Assistant City Manager for
13
many years.
" 14
Jack Balshaw — It is inappropriate to issue a Negative Declaration in light of the
.15
Sierra Madre case, even though this does not concern a project, it will have an
16
extremely significant impact — this is not changing anything, maximum amount of
17
taxes allocated is not being determined; some confusion biggest concern is
18
technically PCDC could borrow entire $80 Million, this will allow redevelopment
19
bonding capabilities to be used up in one or two instances, there will not be any more
20
bonding capability left, maximum taxes not being established — this is not a simple
- 21
text change.
. 22
Commissioner Glass — Defined Redevelopment Agency Bond; (to Mr. Balshaw) If
23
we're changing wording, I'm missing what you're saying, please clarify. In order to
24
issue a redevelopment bond, blight must be determined; we're well within technical
25
framework.
26
Jack Balshaw — This proposal will not do the two things that the staff report says
27
needs to be done; definition is being changed even though there is no physical
28
project being done, funds can be obligated — may be unable to provide environmental
29
protection more significant than just a language change.
30
Bryant Moynihan — Numbers are trying to be increased, bonding capacity far less;
31
technical change — number of goals of General Plan — environmental factors affected
32
— land use /planning/utility infrastructure; PCDC most important funding source to
33
implement several plans does not believe funds will be available; fiscal position of
34
City is getting worse, City doesn't have funds for an emergency situation; may be in
35
conflict with public interest, documents were not available until January 7, requires
36
more time to review, General Plan Consistency Findings are even more complicated;
37
no PCDC adopted budget, no CIP; finding of urban blight necessary — this hasn't
38
been done, $12 Million more expended than taken in; funds have been borrowed
39
because of Payran Flood Fix — Zone 2A didn't come up with $18 Million — only $5
40
Million, (displayed a spread sheet showing bonding capacity, balance of funds if $20
41
Million); shortfall for Payran will come out of this, how does this fit into other goals?
42
This is a request to raise our credit limit.
43
Geoff Cartwright — Rainier proponents always want to take development funds.
44
Gene Beatty — This was initially intended to be out for bonds in May.
45
15
Planning Commission Minutes - January 11, 2000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Consensus was reached to continue this item to the January 25" Planning
Commission Meeting.
Commissioner Glass — Petaluma is rated A -3 /A -, there are very few communities
rated higher in the State of California.
Commissioner Broad — Clarify public review period adequacy.
Commissioner Feibusch — I need clarification — if redevelopment money goes to
Payran project, don't we need to make findings?
Gene Beatty — We will be sure to have consultants available at the January 25
meeting to answer all questions.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
IV. ADOPT YEAR 2000 MEETING SCHEDULE.
The following meeting schedule was adopted
January 11, 25
February 8, 23(Wednesday)
March 14, 28
April 11, 25
May 9, 2'
13, 27
July 11, 25
August 8, 22
September 12, 26
October 10, 24
November 14, 28
December 12
V. PROJECT UPDATES:
Baker Street Bar & Grill — Although the City Council has
continued this item to Feb. 28, the property owner, Jon
Jernigan, has not resubmitted any documentation for review.
Status is pending.
ADJOURNMENT:
s \pc -p 1 an\minutes \0111