HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/27/2001Planning Commission Minutes - March 27, 2001
py L U City of Petaluma, California
City Council Chambers
Q, City Hall, 11 English Street
f Petaluma, CA 94952
Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498
18 5 $ E -Mail planning-nci.petaluma.ca.us
Web Page 1=: / /www.ei.petaluma.ca.us
1
2 Planning Commission Minutes
3 March 27, 2001 - 7000 P
4
5 Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Broad *, Glass, Monteschio, Vieler, Vouri
6 Absent: O'Brien
7 * Chair
8
9 Staff. Mike Moore, Community Development Director
10 George White, Planning Manager
11 Bonne Gaebler, Housing Administrator
12 Irene Borba, Senior Planner
13 Jane Thomson, Sr. Planning Technician
14 Betsi Lewitter, Contract Planner
15 Jan Tolbert, Administrative Secretary
16
17
18 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the February 27 and March 13, 2001 were
19 approved with corrections.
20 PUBLIC COMMENT: Diane Rielly Torres - Water conservation concerns.
21 DIRECTOR'S REPORT`: None.
22 COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: Commissioner Barrett - would like to receive
23 correspondence from staff asap (referring to City Attorney letter).
24 CORRESPONDENCE: Various correspondence regarding Salvation Army; Letter
25 from Downtown Association regarding Basin Street proposal.
26 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
27 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
28
29
30 CONSENT CALENDAR
31
32 I. OCCIDENTAL TRADING COMPANY, 6 Petaluma Boulevard North, Suite
33 A8, APN 008 -054 -005, File #PCN 01001
34
Planning Commission Minutes - March 27, 2001
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
Consideration of a request that a determination be made and findings forwarded to the
State 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 Occidental Trading Company to allow the retail sales of alcohol at 6 Petaluma
Boulevard North, Suite 8.
The Commission voted to make the determination that public convenience or necessity
would be served by the issuance of a Type 20 Alcoholic Beverage License based on the
findings and subject to the conditions listed below.
Commissioner Barrett: Yes
Commissioner Glass: Yes
Commissioner Monteschio: Yes
Commissioner O'Brien: Absent
Commissioner Vieler: Yes
Commissioner Vouri: Yes
Chair Broad: Yes
Findin ,gs 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 Occidental Trading Company because:
a. The sale of wine in the retail shop will provide a convenience to the
general public;
b. The sale of wine in the retail shop to patrons increases the economic
viability of the business;
C. Although Occidental Trading Company is proposed to be 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 there will be no on -site consumption, and the hours of the retail
operation are limited to 8:30AM to 5:30PM, Monday through Friday, which will
limit the potential for nuisances.
Conditions
1. Hours of operation for the sales of alcohol shall be limited to 8:30AM to 5:30PM.
An expansion of hours for alcohol sales shall require additional review by the
Planning Commission.
2
Planning Commission Minutes - March 27, 2001
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
47
48
2. 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.
3. A permit is required from the Fire Marshal for the installation or alteration of a
fire sprinkler system prior to the commencement of work. A minimum of two sets
of plans with calculations is required to be submitted for review and approval.
4. Fire sprinkler modifications of more than 6 sprinklers require a pressure test at 50
P.S.I. over static pressure.
5. All contractors shall have a city business license and a workers compensation
certificate on file with the Fire Marshal's office.
6. Extend sprinkler system to protect all areas of building additions and or tenant
space alterations. Fire sprinkler additions or alterations involving more than 6
heads require plan submittal.
7. All contractors performing work on fire sprinkler systems, either overhead
systems or underground fire service mains, shall have a C -16 Contractors License.
8. Activation of the fire sprinkler system shall sound an interior alarm that will
notify normally occupied spaces as approved by the Fire Marshal's Office.
9. 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.
OLD BUSINESS
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
II. SALVATION ARMY PETALUMA CENTER — 721 South McDowell Blvd.,
AP No. 007 - 570 -028. Conditional Use Permit (CUP00014). Request for CUP
to allow construction and operation of a variety of religious services,
community assembly and social programs in the R -1 -6,500 Zoning District.
Project Planner: Betsi Lewitter
(Continued from the February 13, 2001 meeting.)
Planning Commission Minutes - March 27, 2001
1 Betsi Lewitter — Presented the staff report - discussed services proposed to be provided;
2 City Attorney present to answer questions; Salvation Army has agreed to all conditions
3 proposed to be imposed; CEQA does not allow any alleged loss of property values in
4 regard to a decision on this item; additional analysis from acoustical engineer included -
5 did not expect noise to be an issue - smaller trees might be more effective than larger
6 trees; grounds maintenance equipment restricted hours; lighting concerns discussed by
7 lighting engineer; traffic concerns discussed in traffic analysis; applicant's master
8 schedule of operations was used to determine on -site parking requirements - deemed
9 adequate; resulting traffic volumes discussed; landscape architect discussed some
to landscaping screening alternatives; special events listed in revised master schedule of
11 operations; additional noticing was extended to 600 feet from site; neighborhood
12 meetings continued to be held; staff recommends approval of CUP based on findings and
13 subject to proposed conditions.
14 Pat Parks - Police Chief - Research regarding Salvation Army - 4 Police reports in last
15 10 years - nothing serious; have been very good neighbors in Petaluma; sometimes
16 confused with soup kitchen, etc.; Brian Hoover very cooperative; other Salvation Army
17 locations in Sonoma County - not aware of any problems; this is a religious non - profit
18 organization - no problems with other food give -away programs of this type; not aware of
19 any crime problems associated with Salvation Army; many businesses /residences in
20 Petaluma have more problems than Salvation Army; will work with neighborhood groups
21 to help understand crime issues associated with this proposal.
22 Wayne Miller - Project Architect - 328 Smith Drive, Petaluma - received letters from
23 neighbors - concerns with proposed uses, design and site planning issues; initiated
24 additional outreach meetings 4 consecutive Monday night meetings - concerns that
25 project would attract vagrants, etc.; first meeting attended by about 100 people - each
26 subsequent meeting attended by smaller group of people; there are still neighbors in
27 opposition - original design has not been substantially altered - design is sound; will
28 continue to refine design through entitlement process; will continue to work with
29 surrounding neighbors during project refinement; acoustical engineer and electrical
30 engineer in attendance to discuss sound/light mitigations.
31 Fred Svinth - Acoustical Engineer - average noise levels would be about 60 decibels -
32 occasionally noise into the low 70's - has looked at wall designs - 8 foot wall could
33 reduce all noise levels to 60 decibels.
34 Commissioner Barrett - Will you propose an 8 foot wall now?
35 Fred Svinth - Will propose relocating (loudest) children (preschoolers) further away
36 from residences.
37 Commissioner Vieler - Fence construction design standards?
38 Fred Svinth - Wood or masonry - type of construction still being looked at.
39 Commissioner Vieler - Fence around entire property or only north area?
40 Fred Svinth - For sound issues, only north area.
41 Commissioner Glass - Would 2 fences make this quieter?
42 Fred Svinth - No, one 8 foot tall fence.
43 Commissioner Broad - Questions regarding materials?
44 Fred Svinth - Masonry more solid material - properly designed wood fence would also
45 work.
46 Commissioner Broad - Along north property line?
4
Planning Commission Minutes - March 27, 2001
1 Fred Svinth - Described proposed fence line (pre- school play area) - more detailed line
2 of site analysis will need to be done.
3 S. Doctor - Electrical Engineer - photometric study for this site - parking lot lights
4 directed down toward parking lot; major concern headlights from cars in driveway - eight
5 foot solid fence would block headlights from neighboring property.
6 Commissioner Glass - when cars enter driveway - headlights aimed up - what size fence
7 to negate?
8 S. Doctor - when lights aimed up - lights would be above roof - eight foot fence would
9 suffice to eliminate lights.
to Commissioner Barrett - That assumes houses are 40 feet from site?
11 S. Doctor - Looking at worst case - proposed fence would eliminate problems; parking
12 lot lights on 7 -day timer programmed to go off at a certain time.
13 Commissioner Glass - What would a sports utility vehicle light height be?
14 S. Doctor - 54 inches - worst-case scenario - lights would be at 7 feet.
15 Wayne Miller - In terms of sound and light - landscape architect has looked at fast -
16 growing plantings.
17 Commissioner Vouri - What distance are houses on north property line?
18 Wayne Miller - Worst case - within 20 feet of fence line; will address specific design
19 issues on house by house basis; anticipated doing this type of specific analysis.
20 Commissioner Barrett - Has there been discussion of changing storage area and daycare
21 area?
22 Wayne Miller - One consideration in placing childcare area - need secure area - potential
23 of bringing more traffic onto site.
24 Commissioner Barrett - Storage /daycare building uses should be switched, move pass -
25 through.
26 Wayne Miller - Social Services is an administrative /on -going function - would cut down
27 on traffic; intensity of use would be increased to back of property; believes this is lowest
28 impact solution - could consider re- thinking layout.
29 Commissioner Broad - Why couldn't front parking lot be used for daycare?
30 Wayne Miller - Awaits direction from Planning Commission.
31 Commissioner Vieler - How would storage area have increased use?
32 Wayne Miller - That is not the only use of that building.
33 Captain Hoover - Regarding daily uses - fully willing to put up walls requested - would
34 put up walls /landscaping at beginning of project; will not seek legal remedies under the
35 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000; agreed to make child care
36 slots available to neighborhood; requested 2 neighborhood members to sit on board; 24-
37 hour access to Salvation Army representatives; staff member will live on site; will not
38 add any new social services operations; aesthically appealing chapel will be designed to
39 help eliminate some stereotypes; will only use quiet maintenance equipment (brooms,
40 electric blowers); proven community need.
41 Commissioner Monteschio - Regarding hours of operation - Saturday hours should be
42 1 OPM.
43 Chair Broad(on Commissioner O'Brien's behalf) - Did you (Hoover) receive Dr. Bush's
44 letter (39 concerns)?
45 Captain Hoover - Yes, did not quite understand no. 5.
46 Chair Broad - What do you have in writing stating no overnight stays?
Planning Commission Minutes - March 27, 2001
1 Captain Hoover — No overnight stays except for existing SFD.
2 Chair Broad - Site plan including adjacent properties - have you prepared plan?
3 Captain Hoover - No, have not prepared plan.
4 Chair Broad - Have you dealt with amplified music issue?
5 Captain Hoover - No outside amplified music /alcohol allowed.
6 Chair Broad - Have you reviewed volunteer /workers backgrounds?
7 Captain Hoover - Yes.
8 Chair Broad - Site plan showing sound walls?
9 Captain Hoover - Yes, willing to do that.
10 Chair Broad - Will new wood fence be allowed next to City easement?
11 Captain Hoover - No information on that.
12 Chair Broad - How many times have you met with neighborhood group?
13 Captain Hoover - 7 times, notes / video -taped meetings.
14 Chair Broad - Sound walls adequately addressed?
15 Captain Hoover - Willing to put in wall to adequately mitigate noise.
16 Chair Broad - Did Building Official make comments?
17 Betsi Lewitter - Building Official has no negative comments at this time - will review in
18 more detail - is aware of all uses.
19 Commissioner Glass - Talking about 8 foot tall sound /light wall - feasible to make entire
20 wall 8 feet soundwall - would that be beneficial?
21 Captain Hoover - adjacent neighbor really does not want an 8 foot soundwall.
22 Wayne Miller - Can make wall work (wood or masonry) - may need to come up with an
23 integrated system - will discuss with all neighbors during design.
24 Dr. Bush 716 Park Lane - Home for 17 years - Salvation Army having much more of
25 an impact than they anticipated; all support Salvation Army - benefit to community - are
26 things said here legally binding? Some plans not conducive to quiet residential
27 neighborhood; impasse has been reached between neighborhood and Salvation Army;
28 there has never been a Use Permit (with existing church) - Salvation Army has chosen to
29 expand uses; would like neighborhood concerns in writing; appreciates thoughts from
30 Planning Commission; childcare hours should be shortened; urges not adopting Mitigated
31 Negative Declaration and Use Permit - incomplete; thanks to all for being neighborly and
32 courteous.
33 Chair Broad - Is testimony during meeting legal agreement?
34 George White - Testimony here probably not legal adopted written conditions would
35 be legal record /requirements.
36 Betsi Lewitter - Read Condition 1 - Indicates sizes of buildings /description of operations
37 in master schedule of operations /description/89 conditions of approval included in staff
38 report.
39 Member of public (gave no identification) - Sarkesian - Inconsistencies in traffic
40 analysis /parking; number of parking spaces is not clear - with up to 60 children in
41 daycare, traffic /parking problems will be overwhelming; traffic on McDowell will be
42 backed up /double parked. Petition signed by over 200 citizens in opposition to this
43 proj ect.
44 Chair Broad - Please go over activity you say is not listed in master listing.
45 Unidentified member of public (above) - After school program - pg. 1, line 35 of
46 original staff report - not mentioned in master schedule.
6
Planning Commission Minutes - March 27, 2001
1 Kimberly Keller - 741 S. McDowell - Single mother, would use this daycare facility -
2 resents being wrongly categorized.
3 Captain Hoover - Explained need for childcare; procedure for hiring childcare workers
4 (finger - printing, etc.)
5 Leslie Robin - Sarkesian Drive - Read letter from Attorney Lysons (already received by
6 Commission) - proposal should not include warehouse facility, warehouse facility
7 intensifies this use - additional traffic and noise incompatible with residential
8 neighborhood; deny warehouse use.
9 No name given - 231 Wilson Street (PEP project) - On behalf of board of directors -
10 thank God for Salvation Army - great- grandmother - please approve this project, it is
11 needed; the neighborhood church (previous use) had people living on site - Salvation
12 Army does not allow this - all should attend church one time on Sunday - see how nice it
13 is; remembers going to Salvation Army when a child (is 73 years old today).
14 Kim Blaksley - Alta Drive - 2 children, mail carrier in neighborhood - God has
15 Salvation Army where it should be; 14,600 lbs. of food collected by mail carriers last
16 year for Salvation Army; thank God for Salvation Army - befriended someone who
17 received food at Salvation Army (her name is Karen) - Salvation Army provides needs to
18 community; children are a blessing - when they become teenagers, no one reaches out to
19 them; Salvation Army is reaching out to all; at Salvation Army 5 -6 times a week, very
20 professional /caring staff, gave his heart to Jesus 5 years ago - needed Salvation Army
21 services then.
22 Carol Quan - Walks past this area on McDowell - very dangerous traffic area now;
23 entrance into church parking lot - driveway very close to McDowell - nowhere for traffic
24 to get into project site - not safe; stop lights are just about ignored; donates to Salvation
25 Army - does not feel safe with this project - walks at night; does not want this in
26 community.
27 John Lowery - Daniel Drive - Has Commission looked at similar facilities to analyze
28 impacts to other neighborhoods?
29 Betsi Lewitter - Police Chief Parks addressed that earlier.
30 Brian Sheridan - 1429 Sarkesian Drive - Put letter into public record - questions -
31 should all aspects of this project be allowed? This church does not have a good design,
32 should be redesigned more aesthically; should daycare be allowed? If neighborhood
33 children are allowed to be included, would be an asset; warehouse should not be allowed;
34 not a local service - outreach program; project should not be allowed in neighborhood;
35 project should not be approved.
36 Commissioner Vieler - How many neighborhood children should be allowed?
37 Brian Sheridan - 25 -30 %.
38 Chair Broad - Concerns re: hours of operation of daycare?
39 Brian Sheridan - Daycare should be closed at 6 -7 PM - concerns with noise and
40 increased traffic in neighborhood; already dangerous intersection.
41 Unidentified member of public - This project should not be allowed /considered.
42 Paull Pretzel - 3820 Bodega Ave. - Has had an active interest in Salvation Army -
43 statements made that this is a faceless corporation coming into the City - Salvation Army
44 would be very responsive to community - voiced support for a great asset; City and
45 Salvation Army very responsive.
Planning Commission Minutes - March 27, 2001
1 Bob Dill - 1401 Sarkesian - Represents wife and two sons - lives 120 yards from site; in
2 support of this project.
3
4 Public hearing was closed.
5
6 Commission Discussion:
7
8 Commissioner Glass - Applicant not playing hard -ball; has willingly tried to be
9 forthcoming; applicant has right to have application processed by July; applicant could go
10 a different route - work out mitigations palatable; less of an intrusion - sound wall at 8
11 foot height, as effective as possible; open to moving the building (Barrett's suggestion);
12 supports day /evening care - need to go beyond normal hours of daycare; regarding traffic
13 concerns - McDowell very busy - factual data has been presented; Sarkesian is only at
14 about 25% of capacity now - cannot turn this down because of traffic on Sarkesian - road
15 will more than accommodate this additional traffic; focus on battles based on fact, not on
16 emotion; property values brought up - out of this pervue; Police Chief indicated that
17 Salvation Army has a good record in this community and in the County; food distribution
18 is necessary - benefits some residents in this neighborhood; with utility bills going up -
19 will be more and more important; further discuss moving buildings around.
20 Commissioner Barrett - This project has a lot of good qualities - likes extended hours of
21 daycare - switch positions of daycare and storage facility; access to storage facility
22 should not be intensive or inconvenient to neighbors; administration building location
23 moving may be a little inconvenient; wants this to work for everyone; additional
24 screening from evergreens - great_ idea - sound absorbing; concerned with additional
25 traffic onto Sarkesian; Mr. Hill brought measure of community feeling which should be
26 adopted; should be able to call representatives of Salvation Army if there are problems;
27 appreciates all concessions made by Mr. Hoover - should be included into any approval.
28 Commissioner Monteschio - agrees this will be an asset to community; would like
29 percentage of childcare from neighborhood; SPARC look at traffic, sound, etc.
30 Commissioner Vouri - (to Lewitter) - Discussion regarding septic system removal (if it
31 still exists).
32 Betsi Lewitter - Called County Environmental Health - still unknown if it exists.
33 Commissioner Vouri - (to Rudnansky) - Regarding your written answer about
34 warehouse - more information.
35 Rich Rudnansky - Planning staff made a determination early that this use is ancillary to
36 primary use - is an issue of interpretation.
37 Commissioner Vouri - Size is one of the factors to be looked at?
38 George White - There is room for an interpretation of what is subordinate.
39 Commissioner Vouri - (to Hoover) - Several members of public have requested
40 childcare hours of operation be changed - any flexibility?
41 Captain Hoover - More than willing to move morning hour back to 7AM (from 6AM);
42 evening hours - l OPM - would like to be able to see if need is there - do not want to move
43 children after l OPM.
44 Commissioner Vouri - Not related to a standard working shift?
45 Captain Hoover - Many difficulties - new need - still seeing what will work.
8
Planning Commission Minutes - March 27, 2001
1 Commissioner Vouri - Proposed uses represent fairly moderate use - not intensive;
2 believes childcare belongs in a family neighborhood; is responsive to neighborhood
3 concerns - all should work together; 8 foot sound/light wall should be a condition of
4 approval; does not support moving building uses; childcare play areas are the concern,
5 not the childcare buildings; likes idea that daycare center isolated from rest of project;
6 would like to consider another condition of approval - lighting that throws zero light -
7 sound and light mitigating wall should be put into place before project begins; applicant
8 should consider reducing evening hours for childcare (7AM to 9PM) does not want to
9 make a condition of approval.
10 Commissioner Vieler - (to Wayne Miller) - can you explain double door operation of
11 building?
12 Wayne Miller - Allows vehicle to drive through building without backing up.
13 Commissioner Vieler - Questions regarding parking adequacy; there are discrepancies
14 regarding maximum parking needed?
15 Betsi Lewitter - Subsequent downsizing (to 80 maximum).
16 Commissioner Vieler - So that will be changed to indicate 80 maximum? Applicant
17 should make 25% of childcare spaces. available to neighborhood children - supports hours
18 of operation - 7PM - would allow l OPM.
19 Chair Broad - Both sides have conducted themselves in a professional manner,
20 appreciates it; sound wall along north side - should 8 foot height be mandated by
21 Planning Commission? Four properties should agree to height. More discussion needed
22 by Commission - where should childcare component go? Should alternate location be
23 reviewed? Is there consensus? Walls /lighting /landscaping timing should be finished
24 before project begins; childcare should be open (25 %) to neighborhood; still has lingering
25 concerns regarding traffic /parking adequacy; (question to Wayne Miller) - did you look at
26 angled parking spaces in various locations to reduce aisle width - one direction for
27 headlight orientation?
28 Wayne Miller - That would be a possibility - depends on clearances, would be happy to
29 re -look at circulation / flipping location of childcare /storage /angled parking.
30 Chair Broad - Re: hours of operation for childcare - 7AM start; (to Hoover) what time
31 are children brought inside in evening? (Hoover - believes summer 8PM); would
32 Commission like to see an alternative design (moving childcare)?
33 Commissioners Monteschio /Glass - Would like to see an alternative design.
34 Wayne Miller - Could we work with SPARC on this?
35 Chair Broad - Too significant - would like to have review here, then SPARC review.
36 Commissioner Vieler - (to Wayne Miller) - how would function be changed if this was
37 redesigned?
38 Wayne Miller - Can't say it wouldn't work - shifting buildings would lose some of
39 functions /distribution.
40 Captain Hoover - Storage facility set up with power panels to be used.for emergency
41 services in case of a disaster.
42 Commissioner Vouri - Supports Commissioner Vieler's idea to sent to SPARC in order
43 to move this project along - trusts Commissioner Monteschio to bring PC concerns to
44 SPARC's attention.
45 Commissioner Monteschio - What is Planning Commission opinion?
9
Planning Commission Minutes - March 27, 2001
1 Commissioner Vieler - Suggestion - approve this project, with understanding that final
2 design come back here before SPARC.
3 George White - Yes, could be conditioned that way.
4 Chair Broad -. Can look at two alternatives - would conditions change? Would be
5 cleaner not to approve project tonight if it would be brought back.
6 Commissioner Vieler - To go through this whole thing again - reluctant to do that.
7 Commissioner Barrett - If we approve this with our additional conditions, could we do
8 that without reopening public review?
9 George White - Public comments would be limited to whatever changes were brought
to about by the additional drawings.
11 Commissioner Glass - I think it is worth one more meeting - to get this project right,
12 neighborhood and Salvation Army might be happier; should not approve only a segment
13 of the project.
14 Commissioner Vieler - Would like this Commission to make statement that project be
15 approved with conditions discussed - feels comfortable that this is just a design issue.
16
17 A motion was made by Commissioner Vieler and seconded by Commissioner Vouiri to
18 approve this project (with redesign alternative reviewed by Planning Commission before
19 going to SPARC) based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions as
20 discussed (to return to next Planning Commission with Resolution indicating all
21 changes /additions).
22
23 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
24 Commissioner Glass: Yes
25 Commissioner Monteschio: Yes
26 Commissioner O'Brien: Absent
27 Commissioner Vieler: Yes
28 Commissioner Vouri: Yes
29 Chair Broad: Yes
30
31
32 COMMISSION DISCUSSION
33
34 III. Discussion of the Zoning Administrator's authority in interpreting City of
35 Petaluma Zoning Ordinance.
36
37 Mike Moore - available to answer questions.
38 Mike Moore - Procedure set with public notice - one part of zoning administration; day
39 to day- how code may apply to particular request - use of word interpretation has formal
40 meaning in zoning ordinance. In case of Basin Street - latter definition, reading and
41 applying zoning ordinance; in terms of how this was applied; let me deal with first issue
42 first - permitted principal uses (allowed by right) - no review necessary by Planning
43 Commission - only interpretation there - no definition of intent of that phrase - looked at
44 this as proposal including offices; particular applicant might want use that would require
45 a conditional use permit; in terms of parking issue - allowance of on- street parking -
46 Zoning Ordinance 26400 and following - 26402 - C - ingress /egress - designed to
47 promote safety and convenience.....relating to parking - SPARC has some purview; most
10
Planning Commission Minutes - March 27, 2001
1 of properties in area under control of single developer; initially proposal for stand alone
2 restaurant - ultimately parking garage would include agreement with City - temporary on-
3 street parking would be temporary - SPARC could indicate that they didn't like the idea
4 of temporary on- street parking - 20 -205 of Zoning Ordinance - applicant can find parking
5 within 600 feet of site; applicant now proposing to provide parking within 600 feet - not
6 proposing to provide on- street parking; Section 20 -600 - Zoning Administrator may
7 modify only in some situations; felt that this condition could be recommended to SPARC
8 - that would come before Planning Commission.
9 Commissioner Monteschio - What puzzled me was - the existing businesses downtown
10 would have their existing parking removed.
11 Mike Moore - Made decision - did not overstep authority in this matter.
12 Commissioner Monteschio - Disappointed that City does not go out into neighborhood
13 to discuss this type of proposal.
14 Mike Moore — Will try to explain how decision was made, agrees there will be more in-
15 fill development in future - does not feel overextended authority; clear direction from
16 Zoning Ordinance.
17 Commissioner Vouri - Article 20 - essentially giving away public property - giving
18 public parking on street away to a developer.
19 Commissioner Barrett - Does not want to step on anyone's toes - would be in best
20 interest of Planning Department to take public into consideration - there is discretion in
21 interpretation; serves Petaluma best if Planning Department is as objective /public input as
22 possible; indication because of large attendance at SPARC, maybe public interest was
23 misread.
24 Mike Moore - Not making these decisions to try to avoid public review; many other
25 issues raised because of this application; there was nothing for PC to rule on - somehow
26 impression is that public review has been minimized; procedural standpoint, difficult to
27 know what to take from these discussions with no formal decision to make; in absence of
28 no formal review - more projects to be looked at in CPSP area.
29 Commissioner Vouri - Get basics out of way first - Mike review for me what is zoning
30 ordinance or law saying only projects involving land use change come here, and others
31 go to SPARC?
32 Mike Moore - In some cases that is true Planning Commission not restricted to looking
33 at land use changes - other items reviewed - most commonly land use issues deal with
34 CUP's - in reading Zoning Ordinance, if use is conditionally permitted - if clear from
35 intent that use requires CUP - it will come before Planning Commission.
36 Commissioner Vouri - Productive conversation - perceived black hole - if determination
37 made that land uses approved for particular area - then project goes to SPARC - there is
38 no opportunity for public input - appeal process for determination is 14 days after zoning
39 administrator makes decision - determination is not made public, so they don't know an
4o appeal can be made.
41 Mike Moore - This involves a larger issue; one way to address is not to have any
42 permitted uses in any zone - all need to be reviewed - don't believe anything different was
43 done in this case; we need a new Zoning Ordinance, but may not solve this problem -
44 needs clear statements of intent, what was zone created for? There will always be another
45 use proposed; having CPSP adopted will help make decisions.
46 Commissioner Broad - How are we going to get a better CPSP and Zoning Ordinance?
IE
Planning Commission Minutes - March 27, 2001
1 Mike Moore - Would require outside consultant, right now no budget.
2 Commissioner Vouri - Basin Street in due process of going to SPARC - if project would
3 have gone to Planning Commission first, there would not have been an issue; long term
4 would like to see SPARC more formalized (night, televised, etc.); there will still be
5 interpretations of CPSP; what about suggestions that CPSP get back together?
6 Mike Moore — =Commissioner O'Brien brought issue up to City Council relative to
7 changing procedure regarding CPSP.
8 Chair Broad - Relating to land use interpretation for greater Petaluma market area -
9 vague reference - if Zoning Ordinance .has that language - uses going into the Central
10 Commercial area - look at modifying this language.
ii Mike Moore - Much easier alternative - who knows what Petaluma market area might
12 be?
13 Commissioner Vieler - many problems with all of this — Mike Moore - said parking was
14 not an interpretation - day to day Zoning Ordinance question - stated that there was not a
15 legal basis to bring Basin. Street before Commission - but you had 3 opportunities to do
16 so.
17 Mike Moore - not necessarily Basin Street itself - if determination that illustrative
18 concept has more meaning than just being illustrative.....
19 Commissioner Vieler — City Council instructed that all projects were to be looked at in
20 same manner - you made determination that since CPSP was not in place had to default to
21 Zoning Ordinance, even though it is outdated - second interpretation - interpreting
22 Zoning Ordinance is also a Planning Commission function - could have said to applicant,
23 Planning Commission should have weighed in; third interpretation - to SPARC - where
24 do you have that authority to be able to assign public parking to specific applicants;
25 Zoning Administrator - 3 occasions that you made interpretations - flat out /dead wrong -
26 did not meet the letter of the law; Planning Commission is body that challenges Zoning
27 Administrator's interpretation - should be subject to land use issues..........
28 Rich Rudnansky - not prepared to address that at this late hour, did not receive this
29 information, was not asked to review this (parking issue), cannot comment on it now.
30 Commissioner Vieler - In a legal sense of word - how can an interpretation be appealed
31 if it was not in public review without a public notice /meeting?
32 Rich Rudnansky — That could be put into Zoning Ordinance.
33 Commissioner Vieler - Concerned with due process, not against Basin Street
34 project .... decision making has been deflected in last two months.
35 Rich Rudnansky - There maybe due process to bring this up.
36 Commissioner Vieler - Commission needs to make decision that projects within CPSP
37 need CUP before Planning Commission.
38 Rich Rudnansky - Brown Act issue - since this was listed as a discussion item only -
39 Continue as an action item to be able to act - AGENDIZE TO NEXT MEETING.
40
41
42 Commissioner Monteschio - We are not getting through our work - add another meeting
43 each month - with no items.
44
45 Chair Broad - All should bring calendars to next meeting.
46
12
Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2001
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
NEW BUSINESS
IV. PARK CENTRAL — Corner of Casa Grande and Lakeville highway; AP No.
005- 040 -049; General Plan Amendment (GPA00005); Rezoning (REZ00004);
Tentative Parcel Map (TMP00007); Zoning Ordinance Amendment
(ZOA00002); and Site Plan & Architectural Review (SPC00090),
Project Planner: Irene Borba
(Continued from the March 13, 2001 meeting.)
This item was continued to the April 10, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting
due to lack of time.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
V. Continued discussion and possible recommendation to the City Council
regarding the applicability to future projects of the "illustrative concept
plan" in the Draft Central Petaluma Specific Plan.
(Continued from March 13, 2001 meeting.)
This item was continued to the April 10, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting
due to lack of time.
VI. Continued discussion of potential revisions and /or modifications to the
Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan.
(Continued from March 13, 2001 meeting.)
This item was continued to the April 10, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting
due to lack of time.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
VII. CONTINUED COMMISSION /STAFF DISCUSSION.
This item was continued to the next available meeting.
VIII. LIAISON REPORTS:
• City Council
• SPARC
• Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee
IN
Planning Commission Minutes - March 27, 2001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
■ Tree Advisory Committee
This item was continued to the next available meeting.
IX. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.
Commissioner Glass - motion to adjourn - 12:05 AM
14