HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/27/1998Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
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
CITY OF PETAL UMA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY HALL, PETALUMA, CA
January 27, 1998
7:00 PM
Commissioners Present_ Bennett, Broad, Feibusch *, Healy, Torliatt, Thompson, Vieler
Commissioners Absent: None.
Staff Pamela A Tuft, Planning Director
James McCann, Principal Planner
Jane Thomson, Senior Planning Technician
Craig Spaulding, Associate Civil Engineer
* Chairperson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 1998 - Staff to review motion regarding Petaluma
Christian Church and return for approval Planning Commission meeting of February
10th.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Lynn Cominsky - Mustang Court Homeowner - Comments
regarding the Heritage Subdivision project - Negotiations with developer are continuing,
but no agreement has been reached, do not grant approval until an agreement is reached.
Matt Hudson - Representing Heritage Subdivision developer (Ryder Homes) -
Developer continuing to work with homeowners; very close to an agreement; this should
not be a factor in tonight's discussion.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Planning Director Tuft - Congratulated Jim McCann on his
new jobs as Planning Director for the City of Calistoga, will be missed in Petaluma.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commission congratulated Jim McCann on his new
position in Calistoga.
CORRESPONDENCE: Memo from Housing Administrator Gaebler regarding
proposed interim shelter site (945 Petaluma Blvd. N.) - proposal withdrawn by COTS.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
2
3 CONTINUED BUSINESS
4
5 I. HERITAGE SUBDIVISION, RIESLING ROAD AT QUINCY WAX; AP
6 NO. 137- 070 -070; FILE NO'S REZ97004, TSM97003(ed).
7
8 Continued consideration of 104 unit detached single - family residential
9 subdivision in the Corona/Ely Specific Plan Area. Actions include:
10
11 1. Recommendation to the City Council for adoption of Mitigated Negative
12 Declaration.
13 2. Recommendation to the City Council to approve PUD Development plan
14 and Development Standards.
15 3. Recommendation to the City Council to approve Tentative Subdivision
16 Map.
17
18 Public Hearing closed at December 9, 1997 meeting.
19
20 Principal Planner McCann presented the staff report.
21
22 COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
23
24 Commissioner Torliatt - Stated that she had met with the applicant prior to this meeting.
25 Commissioner Healy - Two separate drainage issues - any further discussions with
26 applicant in this regard?
27 Associate Civil Engineer Spaulding No further discussions; typical design takes into
28 account provisions for proper drainage; Municipal Code allows detention pond design if
29 feasible.
30 Commissioner Healy - Suggested applicant and City look at proposed design so that if
31 detention ponds were to be added later redesign would not have to be done.
32 Associate Civil Engineer Spaulding - Proposed design would not preclude detention
33 ponds added later.
34 Commissioner Broad - Concerns with adequacy of yard sizes.
35 Commissioner Vieler - Any further discussions with Mr. Malone (who spoke at last
36 meeting) regarding secondary easement to his property?
37 Principal Planner McCann - No further discussions; City does not see an advantage to
38 adding a second public access; staff hasn't encouraged applicant to include this in their
39 proposal.
40 Commissioner Vieler - Mr. Malone had concerns about being protected in the future
41 (right to farm).
42 Planning Director Tuft - Subdivider not directly involved in the option of granting an
43 easement across City property; decision rests with City Council; Urban Separator
44 property has already been dedicated to the City by Mr. Gatti.
2
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
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
Commissioner Vieler - Can Planning Commission make a recommendation to City
Council?
Planning Director Tuft - Yes, it would be very appropriate to do so.
Commissioner Torliatt - Clarification.of density transfer.
Principal Planner McCann - General Plan identifies a portion of site as Urban
Separator; City does not "buy" that property as park land; density is allowed to transfer
onto adjacent property; that density is up to 125 units with transfer (would allow 35
additional lots - applicant is proposing to use only 7).
Commissioner Torliatt - Can any other developer /project use the balance of additional
lots from this density transfer?
Principal Planner McCann - No; unused density is not available for transfer; that is
clearly stated in a memo from City attached to the Parcel Map.
Commissioner Vieler - How legal is that memo? It is definite that they can't be used
later?
Principal Planner McCann - Yes, very definite.
Commissioner Thompson - Can we state that the remaining units cannot be used later?
Can this be made a finding on this project?
Commissioner Healy - Could be made a finding - approving project with requested
density:
Commissioner Thompson - What will happen with Parcel 3 in the future (the
greenhouses)?
Principal Planner McCann - Mr. Gatti is content with the nursery remaining -
designated Urban Standard at present.
Commissioner Healy - (Stated that he had met with Mr. Hudson and his client regarding
this project); Concerns with rearyard setbacks; portion of street "B" should be moved to
create more desirable -sized yards for more lots; street layout is good.
Commissioner Torliatt - Physical constraints - very large housing mass covering most
of the lot; lots very small - maybe a smaller floorplan should be introduced.
Commissioner Bennett - Maybe we cannot use 1980's thinking about large yards -
maybe they are a thing of the past; we are running out of space; let's get on with this
discussion.
Commissioner Thompson - Agrees with Commissioner Torliatt - too many houses on
this site; what will happen on Parcel 3 in future? homes on Riesling should have larger
backyards; how much can be taken from feathering at Urban Separator?
Commissioner Vieler - (Stated that he met previously with Mr. Hudson and the
applicant); How does the applicant feel about Commissioner Healy's idea of adding ten
feet to the lots? Look at development already surrounding this project - it is all higher
density.
Commissioner Feibusch - Agrees with Commissioner Healy's idea of increasing lots
sizes by approximately 10 feet.
Planning Director Tuft - Relocation of Street "B" could be possible; would like to hear
from Engineering Department and applicant.
Bob Rogers - Applicant - Would be willing to redesign per Commission Healy's
proposal.
3
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
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
Planning Director Tuft - If lot sizing was "spread- out " there would be more of a sense
of feathering (5 feet to 20 feet side yards gradually increasing as lots approach Urban
Separator).
Commissioner Vieler - Feathering needs to have specific distances determined; would
like fewer homes in project; as houses approach Urban Separator, lots should be at
maximum size; any information regarding surrounding projects' density?
Planning Director Tuft - Described surrounding land development densities.
Principal Planner McCann - Diverse density in this area (indicated aerial photos).
Chairman Feibusch - Do we have a consensus on density? Favors Commissioner
Healy's idea.
Commissioner Vieler - Lots lines on all lots need to be changed.
Commissioner Healy - Move street "B" out 10 feet; 8 tiers of lots should have more
gradual feathering; staff can work administratively with applicant.
Commissioner Broad - Lots should be reallocated more evenly.
Commissioner Vieler - A better practical "feathering" definition is needed.
Chairman Feibusch - Regarding drainage - there is an existing drainage problem; make
sure drainage is adequate, does not add to existing problems.
Associate Civil Engineer Spaulding - Feels comfortable with review by, Sonoma
County Water Agencv, etc.
Commissioner Broad - Would the standard "hold harmless" clause protect the City
against future drainage problems?
Planning Director Tuft - Can redraft clause and run past the City Attorney regarding a
recorded "hold harmless" clause specific to drainage.
Commissioner Healy - Would like staff to think about a detention pond for sometime in
the future - make sure there are no design issues which would preclude this.
Chairman Feibusch - Circulation issues - interconnection with college is adequate.
Commissioner Torliatt - Any discussion at SPARC regarding pedestrian access to the
retail site?
Principal Planner McCann - Pedestrian access to retail site is addressed.
Commissioner Torliatt - Concerns with traffic speeds along Riesling, needs to be
addressed; also concerned with clear knowledge of potential residents of future school
site.
Planning Director Tuft - There will probably be consideration in the future of a three -
way stop at Sandstone/Riesling, due to proximity of schools.
Commissioner Bennett - Is Mr. Malone's concern between the City and Mr. Malone?
Planing Director Tuft - Yes.
Commissioner Vieler - Would like to indicate to the City Council how Planning
Commission would like this issue resolved.
Commissioner Healy - Not in favor of a recommendation for a second easement.
Commissioner's Bennett and Feibusch - Agree with Commissioner Healy.
Commissioner Broad - Regarding eminent domain - would not like the roadway to be
acquired - would like the developer to work out an arrangement with the Mustang Court
neighbors.
Commissioner Torliatt - Needs to be agreed before Council sees this project.
4
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
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
Consensus: Modify findings to add clarity regarding transfer of density; second easement
not recommended.
A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Vieler to
recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed subdivision based on the
findings and subject to the mitigation measures and amended conditions listed below:
Commissioner Bennett: Yes
Commissioner Broad: Yes
Chairman Feibusch: Yes
Commissioner Healy: Yes
Commissioner Thompson: No
Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
Commissioner Vieler: Yes
Findings for Mitigated Negative Declaration
1. An Initial Study has been prepared for the Heritage Subdivision, and proper notice
provided in accordance with CEQA and local guidelines.
2. Based upon the Initial Study and comments received, potential impacts could be
avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures attached as
conditions of approval. There is no substantial evidence that the Heritage
Subdivision, as conditioned, would have a significant effect on the environment.
3. A monitoring program has been included to insure compliance with the adopted
mitigation measures for the Heritage Subdivision.
4. The Heritage Subdivision does not have potential to affect wildlife resources as
defined in the Fish and Game code, either individually or cumulatively, and is
exempt from Fish and Game filing fees.
5. The Heritage Subdivision is not located on any Hazardous Waste List compiled
by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
6. The Planning Commission/City Council reviewed the Initial Study/Negative
Declaration and considered the comments before making a decision on the
proj ect.
7. The recorded proceedings of the decision are available for public review at the
City of Petaluma, Planning Department, City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma,
CA.
8. Potential circulation impacts resulting from development of the Heritage
Subdivision, as conditioned, will be adequately mitigated through: improvement
5
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
1 of the Sonoma Mountain Parkway, right -of -way including integration of a new
2 intersecting street for access to the project and adjacent properties; and a system
3 of interior, public streets adequately designed to meet the anticipated traffic
4 volumes. The project will implement of pedestrian and bicycle links as identified
5 in the Corona/Ely Specific Plan.
6
7 9. Potential drainage impacts , resulting from development of the Heritage
8 Subdivision, as conditioned, will be adequately mitigated by the installation of
9 drainage improvements designed to City and Sonoma County Water Agency
10 Standards, and to preclude lot -to -lot surface runoff.
11
12 10. Potential noise impacts to existing residents and future residents of the Heritage
13 Subdivision and surrounding neighborhoods will be adequately mitigated by the
14 restriction of construction hours; and a recorded notice shall be required to
15 provide disclosure of potential noise impacts to potential buyers of homes
16 adjacent to the designated commercial site, the future school site and the existing
17 nursery facility.
18
19 11. Potential visual impacts of the Heritage Subdivision will be adequately mitigated
20 through use of compatible street, lot and building configurations /design which
21 result in positive (fronting) orientation of homes towards the surrounding public
22 streets.
23
24 12. Potential impacts to existing agricultural uses shall be mitigated by the inclusion
25 of a deed disclosure informing buyers of the existence of said uses and the
26 potential for related nuisances (e.g., noise, odor, flies, etc.).
27
28 Mitigation Measures
29
30 All mitigation measures as specified in the Initial Study for the Heritage Subdivision are
31 herein incorporated.
32
33 Findineus for Rezoning to Plan Unit District
34
35 1. The proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., to classify and
36 rezone Assessor's Parcel No. 137- 070 -070, known as the Heritage Subdivision, to
37 a Planned Unit District (PUD) is in general conformity with the Petaluma General
38 Plan and Corona/Ely Specific Plan because it integrates important design features
39 specified, including: appropriate design of streets and pathways for public use,
40 and a broad range of admirable house designs contributing to attractive
41 streetscapes.
42
43 2. The public necessity, convenience and general welfare clearly permit and will be
44 furthered by the proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, classifying and
45 rezoning the Gatti property, because the project, as conditioned, includes
6
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
1 Development Standards /zoning regulations appropriate for the protection and
2 promotion of public health, safety, morals, peace, comfort, convenience,
3 prosperity and general welfare of the residents of this development and the
4 general public.
5
6 3. The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been
7 satisfied through preparation of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to
8 'avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance, potential environmental impacts
9 generated by the proposed Heritage Subdivision.
10
11 Findings for Approval of the PUD Development Plan and Standards
12
13 1. The proposed Heritage Subdivision is proposed on property which has a suitable
14 relationship to one or more thoroughfares, and that said thoroughfares, with the
15 improvements herein required including a signalized intersection at Sonoma
16 Mountain Parkway, improvements to the Riesling Road collector street including
17 the traffic circle, and a bike path on the Riesling Road extension, are adequate to
18 carry any additional traffic generated by the development.
19
20 2. The plan for the Heritage Subdivision presents a unified and organized
21 arrangement of buildings and service facilities including: the extension of
22 Riesling Road, and Urban Separator improvements, which are appropriate in
23 relation to adjacent or nearby properties, and adequate site design, landscaping
24 and screening is included to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses.
25
26 3. The natural and scenic qualities of the site and its surroundings are protected
27 through conditions of approval including: landscaping, and an attractive mix of
28 house designs and associated Development Standards regulating
29 appropriate /attractive future modifications, if any.
30
31 4. Adequate public spaces have been designated on the Heritage Subdivision PUD
32 Development Plan, through the proposed and required dedication of land for
33 public right -of -way purposes, the dedication of the Urban Separator and the
34 improvement of a pedestrian bike path along the Urban Separator.
35
36 5. The development of the subject Heritage Subdivision property in the manner
37 proposed by the applicants, and as conditioned to control storm drainage, and
38 provide appropriate circulation for both vehicles and pedestrians, will not be
39 detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interest of the City and will
40 be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations of the
41 City of Petaluma, with the Petaluma General Plan and Corona/Ely Specific Plan,
42 and with other applicable plans and standards adopted by the City.
43
44 6. The proposed Heritage Subdivision incorporates the feathering concept from the
45 Land Use and Growth ILfanagement section of the General Plan (Policy 7) where,
7
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
1 'properties that adjoin the Urban Limit Line shall be of limited density and shall
2 be designed to preserve the visual and physical openness and preserve the
3 aesthetic and natural features of that portion of the property proximate to the
4 rural areas outside of the designated Urban Limit Line".
5
6 7. The proposed Heritage Subdivision, which incorporates the use of Transfer of
7 Development Rights (TDR) to increase the overall density of this proposal, would
8 not have been approved without the TDR. Because the applicant voluntarily
9 chose to propose construction of relatively large homes, the full number of homes
10 theoretically made possible by the TDR could not reasonably be accommodated.
11 Therefore, the remaining density (of 28 units on Parcel 3 that remain) from the
12 TDR is null and void and cannot be transferred to other surrounding lands.
13
14 Conditions of PUD Development. Plan and Standards
15
16 1. All mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with approval of the Mitigated
17 Negative Declaration for the Heritage Subdivision are incorporated herein by
18 reference as conditions of project approval.
19
20 2. All conditions of the Tentative Subdivision Map approved for the Heritage
21 Subdivision are incorporated herein by reference, and shall be enforced, as
22 applicable, with the PUD Development Plan. The Final Map shall be prepared to
23 be consistent with the Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan which shall be
24 reviewed and approved by the City Council.
25
26 3. The PUD development plan shall be amended to reflect the following
27 amendments, subject to review and approval prior to consideration of the PUD
28 and Tentative Map by the city Council: proposed "B" Street shall shift 10 feet
29 towards the Urban Separator. Lots between "B" Street and Riesling Road are to
30 be increased by approximately 5' each, with the increase allocated to the new
31 yards. The lots between `B " Street and the urban separator are to gradually
32 increase in size as they approach the urban separator as approved by staff.
33
34 4. All conditions of the Planning Department shall be met, including:
35
36 a. The final content and composition of the PUD Development
37 Standards shall be subject to SPARC for review and approval prior to
38 Final Map approval. Two SPARC approved copies of the PUD
39 Development Standards shall be submitted to the Planning Department
40 prior to application for a Final Map.
41
42 b. The PUD Development Plan including all improvements along the
43 Urban Separator, Riesling Road, and Roundabout pursuant to the adopted
44 parkway guidelines, including: landscaping, sidewalk/pathway location,
8
Planning .Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
etc., shall be reviewed by SPARC prior to approval of the Final Map and
2
improvement drawings.
3
4
C. The PUD Development Plan shall be amended, if deemed
5
necessary by Planning staff, to reflect the correct project mix (lot
6
configuration and numbers, house plan number /type, elevation style /type
7
and color scheme) pursuant to all conditions of approval, prior to
8
application for SPARC review and prior to staff review of the Finial Map
9
and Improvement Drawings.
10
11
d. A reproducible copy of the final SPARC approved PUD
12
Development Plan and Standards (book) shall be submitted to the
13
Planning Department prior to Final Map approval (first phase).
14
15
e. All proposed subdivision landscape plans shall be subject to
16
SPARC approval, including the Urban Separator street frontage treatment
17
(plant palette, pedestrian/bicycle path design, etc.). Prior to SPARC
18
approval of the landscape plans, comments shall be obtained from the
19
Recreation, Music and Parks Commission in order to facilitate
20
coordination of desired Urban Separator /Open Space uses and
21
improvements (i.e., need for bollards, irrigation/utility stub -outs, etc.).
22
However, the developer shall not be responsible for the costs of
23
implementation of any Urban Separator improvements other than the
24
public landscape strip adjacent to the street, the associated irrigation
25
system and the combined pedestrian/bicycle path, unless required by other
26
City agreements.
27
28 S.
All requirements of the Building Division shall be met, including:
29
30
a.
Grading must be certified when completed to indicate compliance with
31
approved plans and will be required for occupancy.
32
33
b.
Where ground slopes greater than 1 on 10, foundation shall be stepped per
34
Uniform Building Code 1803.2.
35
36
C.
Soils with expansion index greater than 20 requires special design
37
foundation per Uniform building Code 1803.2.
38
39
d.
All retaining walls shall meet the requirements of the 1994 UBC, and shall
40
comply with Petaluma Standards Ordinance No. 1727/1988.
41
42
e.
Residential buildings over 3,000 sq. ft. need two required exits.
43
44
f.
Show site drainage and grading topography.
45
9
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
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
g. Indicate all utilities on site plan.
h. Driveway gradient shall comply with Ordinance No. 1533/1982.
i. Responsible party to sign plans.
j. Submit soils report to verify foundation design.
k. Indicate group occupancy, type of construction, square footage.
1. Plans must show compliance to 1994 UBC, UPC, UMC, and 1993 NEC.
Plans must also show compliance to current Title 24 Energy Conservation
and/or Disabled Access Requirements.
M. Provide structural calculations for all non - conventional design items.
n. Demolition permit required to remove any structure.
o. Abandonment of water well or septic system must be done under permit
from County of Sonoma Public Health Department.
6. 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.
Findings for Tentative Subdivision Map
1. The proposed Heritage Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is in general
conformity with the Petaluma General Plan and Corona/Ely Specific Plan because
it integrates important design features specified, including: appropriate design of
streets and pathways for public use, and a broad range of admirable house designs
contributing to attractive streetscapes.
2. The proposed Heritage Subdivision, as conditioned, is in general conformity with
the standards and intent of the PUD District, and other applicable provisions of
the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance.
10
i
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
1
3.
The proposed Heritage Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is in general
2
conformance with the Petaluma Subdivision Ordinance and other applicable
3
provisions of the Petaluma Municipal Code.
4
5
4.
The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act have been met
6
through preparation of an Initial Study and adoption of a Mitigated Negative
7
Declaration, to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance, potential
8
environmental impacts of the Heritage Subdivision.
9
10
5.
The Heritage Subdivision has met all requirements of the City of Petaluma
I 1
Residential Growth Management System, as specified under Chapter 17.26 of the
12
Municipal Code.
13
14
Tentative Subdivision Map Conditions
j 15
16
1.
All mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with approval of the Mitigated
17
Negative Declaration for the Heritage Subdivision are incorporated herein by
18
reference as conditions of project approval.
19
20
2.
All conditions of the PUD Development Plan approved for the Heritage
I
21
Subdivision are incorporated herein by reference, and shall be enforced, as
22
applicable, with the Tentative Subdivision Map. The Final Map shall be prepared
23
to be consistent with the Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan which shall be
24
reviewed and approved by the City Council.
25
26
3.
All conditions of the Planning Department shall be met, including:
27
28
I
b. A reproducible copy of the revised Tentative Map, submitted to the
29
Planning Department on January 13, 1998, shall be submitted to the
30
Planning Department prior to approval of the first phase of the Final Map.
31
I
32
4.
The developer shall continue to work with neighbors along Mustang Court to
i 33
attempt to resolve the easement issue before the scheduling the Heritage
34
Subdivision item before the City Council. Th e app lieaR4 shat pr-evi e f r- right
35
36
to the Final Map (first. Should the
approval- -era phase
37
th t, a
City be the e
r - egxir-ed —to obtain efn Elema py-Ew
38
^o a b , t�
t th ',a t, l b =rc..
a ll 9 ro incca „ j ...`......y.
ca�c��cnr .Trri�� rP?aci- �zurrveui - c"srx c
39
40
5.
The applicant shall submit notice(s), subject to the review and approval of
41
Planning staff, informing buyers of ongoing agricultural uses, the existing nursery
42
site, proposed retail site, high density housing, and a junior high school on
43
adjacent lots which may impact their property. Said notices) shall be submitted
44
with the Final Map application to be recorded with the Final Map for the project.
45
�
11
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
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
6 Review of the improvement drawings will not preclude the ability to create a
detention basin on the Urban Separator.
7.6- All conditions of the Fire Marshal shall be met, including:
a. Minimum fire flow required for this project is 1,500 gallons per
minute at 20 pounds per square inch (psi).
b. Fire hydrants shall be spaced at a maximum of 300' apart.
Location and type of fire hydrants are to be approved by the Fire Marshal's
office.
C. Provide access, a minimum twenty (20) feet, exclusive of on street
parking, all asphalt surface with thirteen feet -six inches (13'6 ") vertical
height clearance.
d. Post address at or near main entry door, a minimum of 4 inch
letters on contrasting background.
e. Address locator required to be posted at or near the driveway
entrance. Reflectorized numbers are acceptable. Location and design to be
approved by the Fire Marshal's office.
f. All required fire lanes in which no parking is allowed, shall be
designated by painting curbs red. Where no curbs exist, signs approved by
the Fire Marshal shall be installed
g. Add as a general note to plans:
No combustible construction is permitted above the foundation unless an
approved all weather hard surface road is provided to within one hundred -
fifty (150') of the farthest point of a building or structure. All fire hydrants
for the project must be tested, flushed, and in service prior to the
commencement of combustible construction on site.
8.-7-. This subdivision shall participate in the Corona/Ely Benefit District (pursuant to
Resolution No. 92 -302 N.C.S.).
9.9-. 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
12
Planning'Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
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
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.
Fees (P-reliminary Estimates)
1. The following fees must be collected prior to issuance of building permits:
Park and Recreation Land Improvement Fee $3,894 per unit
2. The following fees must be collected prior to Final Building Inspection or
Certificate of Occupancy:
Water Connection Fee (Zone # 4)
$3,110 per unit
Storm Drainage Impact
$196.88 per unit
Community Facilities Development Fee
$805 per unit
Traffic Mitigation Fee
$3,007 per unit
Sewer Connection Fee
$2,550 per unit
3. The following fee must be paid directly to the School District prior to
issuance of Building Permit:
School Facilities Fee (Amount Determined by School District)
4. In -Lieu Housing Fee of $2,400 per unit (typically collected through escrow).
5. Corona Ely Benefit District (Assessment to be determined pursuant to
Resolution No. 92 -302 N.C.S.).
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
II. KODIAK JACK'S HONKY TONK AND SALOON; WAYNE VIELER; 256
PETALUMA BLVD. NORTH; AP NO. 006 - 284 -036 (jkt).
Continued consideration of a request by Wayne Vieler to amend Kodiak Jack's
Honky Tonk and Saloon Conditional Use Permit to allow:
Cardroom a 24 hour, 7 day per week, 15 table cardroom (current facility operates
3 tables, 7 days per week from 9AM to 2AM).
Alcoholic Beverage Establishment a modification to the existing Alcoholic
beverage Establishment entitlement to permit an expansion of the hours of bar
operation from the present 9AM to 2AM, to 6AM to 2AM.
13
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
1 Commercial Recreation/Arcade an expansion of the existing hours of 5PM to
2 2AM, 7 days /week, to 6AM to 2AM, Sunday through Thursday, and 6AM to
3 4AM Friday and Saturday.
4
5 (Commissioner's Healy and Vieler abstained.)
6
7 Senior Planning Technician Thomson presented the staff report.
8
9 DISCUSSION:
10
11 Commissioner Bennett - (to Chief Building Official) - Can we have an explanation of
12 Building Code as it relates to main entrance.
13 Chief Building Official Kagan - Access must be to a public street and be accessible to
14 handicapped individuals because of assembly occupancy; stairs would preclude this a
15 main entrance; Mr. Vieler could monitor the main entrance and direct patrons to the side
16 entrance.
17 Commissioner Torliatt - Businesses along this river corridor need to be encouraged to
18 open onto Water Street for river enhancement.
19 Commissioner Bennett - Building Codes need to applied with a little flexibility.
20 Chief Building Official Kagan - Ramps are effective for handicap access; if Mr. Vieler
21 elected to lock the main entrance and monitor that entrance with buzzers, etc. this would
22 be allowed; front door just needs to be accessible, how Mr. Vieler chooses to do this is up
23 to him.
24 Principal Planner McCann - Two reasons for staff to recommend against a 24 -hour use
25 - one is access (that seems to have been answered) the other is a Police concern.
26 Commissioner Broad - How can the commercial recreational use be regulated to use the
27 side entrance?
28 Principal Planner McCann - Regulation would be very difficult - there would be a
29 monitoring issue.
3o Chief Building Official Kagan - The required exits (one in rear and one in front) must
31 be unlocked (from inside) at all times.
32 Wayne Vieler - Applicant - There are three exits /entrances - a 24 -hour restaurant would
33 be allowed without a Use Permit; has no intention of operating a 24 hour restaurant.
34 wants a restaurant in order to feed the clientele after hours, to cool off the alcohol, will
35 have piped in music, the arcade use should be allowed during these hours; the cardroom,
36 arcade and commercial recreation should be looked at as separate issues. When the
37 Police Department says they wouldn't be able to respond to a problem because of lack of
38 staff, this could happen with a restaurant use.
39
40 Chairman Feibusch - Planning Commission has no control over a restaurant use at this
41 site.
42 Wayne Vieler - Validity of argument of lack of control for cardroom use is in question.
43 Chairman Feibusch - Favors a 24 hours use; not in favor of music and arcade hours
44 requested by applicant.
14
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
1 Commissioner Bennett - Favors a 24 -hour use (on a short leash with a six -month
2 review) other cardrooms in town are 24 hours, they are not major problems.
3 Commissioner Broad - Does not support arcade /music use - not in support of 24 -hour
4 use at this location; no residential uses near the other cardroom locations in town.
5 Commissioner Thompson - 24 -hour cardroom ok; no arcade /music.
6 Commissioner Torhatt - Agrees with Commissioner Thompson.
7
8 A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner
9 Bennett to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve an amendment to the
10 Conditional Use Permit currently held by Kodiak Jack's based on the findings and subject
11 to the amended conditions listed below:
12
13 Commissioner Bennett: Yes
14 Commissioner Broad: No
15 Chairman Feibusch: Yes
16 Commissioner Healy: Abstain
17 Commissioner Thompson: Yes
18 Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
19 Commissioner Vieler: Abstain
20
21 Findings for Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
22
23 1. An Initial Study has been prepared and proper notice provided in accordance with
24 CEQA and local guidelines.
25
26 2. Based upon the Initial Study and comments received, potential impacts could be
27 avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures attached as
28 conditions of approval There is no substantial evidence that the project, as
29 conditioned, would have a significant effect on the environment.
30
31 3. The project does not have potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the
32 Fish and Game code, either individually or cumulatively and is exempt from Fish
33 and Games filing fees because no significant wildlife resources have been
34 identified on the project site.
35
36 4. The project site is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List
37 compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
38
39 5. The Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
40 Declaration and considered the comments before making a decision on the
41 project.
42
43 6. The Planning Commission finds that authorizing the establishment of a 15 -table
44 cardroom, with the incorporation of the suggested mitigation measures from the
45 Police Department as relates to hours of operation and security (personnel,
15
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
1 cameras, location of money and chips), contained in the Initial Study/Mitigated
2 Negative Declaration will avoid or reduce potential environmental impacts. to
3 Police Services to a level of insignificance.
4
5 7. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public
6 review at the City of Petaluma, planning Department, City Hall 11 English Street,
7 Petaluma, California.
8
9 Findings for the Conditional Use Permit
10
11 For the Cardroom
12
13 1. The proposed expansion to a 15 -table cardroom, as conditioned, will conform to
14 the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance Section 21 -420,
15 and includes conditions requiring improvements which will comply with all
16 applicable laws, including, but not limited to, the City's building, zoning, fire
17 ordinances, and police requirements.
18
19 2. The location of the proposed commercial recreation activity /cardroom is in
20 conformance with Petaluma Zoning Ordinance Section 21- 420.26 which prohibits
21 cardrooms within 250 feet of schools or residential districts. Although the
22 cardroom will be located within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the exterior limits
23 of a residentially zoned district, the cardroom is an ancillary use in the larger
24 commercial recreational use for which Kodiak Jack's Honky Tonk and Saloon is
25 governed by a Conditional Use Permit.
26
27 3. The proposed expansion of the existing cardroom to 15- tables, as conditioned, is
28 consistent with Petaluma Zoning Ordinance Section 21- 420.22, which limits the
29 number of cardrooms operating in the City to 3, based on population, and limits
30 the number of tables per establishment to 15. The proposal to operate 15 tables
31 does not exceed the maximum allowed.
32
33 4 The proposed expansion of the cardroom to 15 tables, as conditioned, and with the
34 limitation of hours of operation, will conform to the requirements and intent,
35 goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan, which encourages the expansion
36 of small, locally -owned businesses which attract visitors and shoppers downtown
37 and upgrade the development of commercial ventures, and supports the economic
38 viability of the downtown area.
39
40 5. The proposed expansion of the existing cardroom to 15 tables, with the limitation
41 of hours of operation, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public
42 welfare of the community, as conditions have been imposed as conditions of
43 approval to address any potential adverse operating characteristics and
44 recall/revocation options exist if necessary.
45
16
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
1 For the Commercial Recreation/Arcade:
2
3 6• The proposed expansion of hours for the Commercial Recreation/Arcade, as
4 conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning
5 Ordinance Section 21 -420, and includes conditions requiring improvements which
6 'will comply with all applicable laws, including, but not limited to, the City's
7 building, zoning, fire ordinances, and police requirements.
8
9 7 The proposed expansion of hours for the Commercial Recreation/Arcade as
10 conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent, goals, and policies of
I i the Petaluma General Plan, which encourages the expansion of small, locally -
12 owned businesses which attract visitors and shoppers downtown and upgrade the
13 development of commercial ventures, and supports the economic viability of the
14 downtown area.
15
16 8. 'The proposed expansion of hours for the Commercial Recreation/Arcade will not
17 constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community, as
18 conditions have been imposed as conditions of approval to address any potential
19 adverse operating characteristics and recall /revocation options exist if necessary.
20
21 Mitigation Measures
23 Mitigation measures and associated monitoring are included in the attached Initial Study.
24
25 Conditional Use Permit Conditions
26
27 From the State of California Department of Justice
28
29 1. The cardroom shall comply with all rules, regulations and requirements of the
30 State of California Department of Justice, Gaming Registration program.
31
32 From the Building Division
33
34 2. The occupancy load in Kodiak Jack's shall not exceed 299 persons at any time.
35
36 From the Planning Department
37
38 3. All conditions of approval of the November 21, 1994, Resolution #94 -309 N.C.S.,
39 the December 18, 1995, Resolution 495 -318 N.C.S., and the August 27, 1996
40 CUP's shall remain valid and applicable as appropriate to this proposed
41 amendment. All mitigations and monitoring means set forth in the Initial Study
42 utilized for the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be recognized
43 as conditions herein.
44
I
45
17
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
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
For the Cardroom
4. This approval authorizes the expansion of the existing cardroom to 15 tables. The
hours of operation shal ,. °..,.,;r 9 ^ N to 14 may be expanded to 24 hours, 7
days per weep Any proposed change in mode or manner of operations shall
require an amendment to the CUP. The CUP shall not be assigned, transferred,
enlarged, expanded, or mode and/or manner of operation changed without prior
notification to the Planning Director, and subsequent review by the Planning
Commission per Zoning Ordinance Section 21- 420.14 and 21- 420.16. Any
change in location, expansion, conversion, etc. of the cardroom facility shall be
subject to Planning Commission review per Zoning Ordinance Section 21- 420.18.
5. The front door of the facility shall be monitored at all times that the bar and the
commercial recreation/arcade activities are not open for business and in use. The
cardroom operator shall formulate a monitoring plan and submit same to the
Planning Director for review prior to the commencement of use of the additional
card tables.
6.6. The cardroom use (operation of the 15 card tables), shall not commence unless
and until the cardroom permit approval issued to Wayne Vieler at Bankshot
Billiards, 246 Petaluma Boulevard North has been surrendered.
6-7. The cardroom use (operation of the 15 card tables), shall not commence unless
and until -a "cardroom permit" per the Petaluma Municipal Code, and all other
appropriate licenses and approvals have been received from the State of California
Department of Justice and the City of Petaluma.
�8. Operation of the cardroom shall be in compliance with all regulations governing
the operation of cardroom facilities per Sections 21- 420 -00 through 21- 420 -42 of
the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, and all provisions of Chapter 6.20 of the
Petaluma Municipal Code.
&-9. The operation of the cardroom shall be subject to review at the discretion of the
Chief of Police or his designee. Should the Police Chief find that security
problems are caused by the cardroom operation and that additional conditions to
regulate this operation are necessary, he shall recommend review by the Planning
Commission which shall consider the concerns and may modify existing
conditions or impose additional conditions as deemed necessary.
For the Alcoholic Beverage Establishment
900. Alcohol service may continue to be provided seven days per week from 9AM to
2AM. No expansion of those hours is authorized without an amendment to the
CUP. All employees shall comply with Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) laws
and regulations. Suspension of the business owners license by the ABC may be
18
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
1 basis for revocation of this conditional use permit. Off - premise sales of alcohol
2 shall not be permitted.
3
4 For the Commercial Recreation/Arcade
5
6 4&11: Operation of the commercial recreation/(maximum 25 game) arcade may
ex T _ --•ee shall remain Monday to Friday 5PM to 2AM, and
8 Saturday and Sunday 9AM to 2AM. No expansion of those hours is authorized
9 without an amendment to the CUP.
10
11 General Conditions
12
13 44-12. Parking shall continue to be provided either on -site or within 600' of the use.
14 Parking shall be based on the occupancy maximum of 299 persons, @ one (1)
15 space per three (3) patrons; or 100 parking spaces.
16
17 Parking area(s) provided must comply with Zoning Ordinance regulations.
18 Parking agreement(s) shall be maintained for the duration of the business'
19 operations and kept on file with the Planning Department. Loss of parking shall
20 result in a corresponding reduction of occupancy permitted.
21
22 413. All requirements of the Building Division shall be complied with including:
23
24 a. Any future improvement to the building shall require plans to be
25 submitted for Building Division review. The following shall apply:
26
27 1. A California Licensed Architect or Engineer is required to
28 sign and stamp the plans.
29 2. Plans must show compliance to 1994 UBC, UPC, UMC,
30 and 1993 NEC. Plans must also show compliance to current Title
31 24 energy conservation and /or Disabled Access Requirements.
32
33 414. All requirements of the Fire Department shall be complied with including:
34
35 a. The proposed use shall be in compliance with the Uniform Fire Codes.
36
37 15. This use permit shall be reviewed in six months by the Planning Commission with
38 regard to operating characteristics and patron activity.
39
40 44.16. This Use Permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review and
41 approval at any time due to complaints regarding lack of compliance with
42 conditions of approval, traffic congestion, noise generation, or other adverse
43 operating characteristics. At such time, the Commission may revoke the use
44 permit or add/modify conditions of approval.
45
19
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
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
4.17. 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
NEW BUSINESS:
PUBLIC HEARING:
III. MARINA PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER; PETER BUCKLIN; 2701
LAKEVILLE HIGHWAY; AP NO. 005-040-018; FILE 0091(jcm).
Consideration and action on a staff recommendation to deny the General Plan
Amendment/Rezoning without prejudice request due to inactivity.
Principal Planner McCann presented the staff report.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Healy - Why would the applicant oppose this action?
Principal Planner McCann - Possibly because of additional filing fees.
The public hearing was opened.
There were no speakers
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Broad and seconded by Commissioner Healy .to
deny, without prejudice, the requested General Plan Amendment and rezoning based on
the following findings:
Commissioner Bennett: Yes
Commissioner Broad: Yes
Chairman Feibusch: Yes
Commissioner Healy: Yes
Commissioner Thompson: Yes
20
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
1 Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
2 Commissioner Vieler: Yes
3
4 Fin in s:
5
6 1. This action is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental
7 Quality Act pursuant to Section 15270, which states that CEQA does not apply to
8 projects which are disapproved by the local jurisdiction.
9
10 2. The application has been in an inactive state for a period in excess of six months
11 without diligent and deliberate progress on the part of the applicant to facilitate
12 processing of the application by the City to allow the project to proceed in the
13 immediate future.
14
15 3. The anticipated anchor tenant (Walmart) withdrew from the application in the
16 summer of 1997. The applicant has been unable to provide a revised project
17 description or revised site plan to reflect this change to date.
18
19 4. The applicant has not funded the Environmental Impact Report determined
20 'necessary for the expedient processing of the pending application.
21
22
23 DEPARTMENT REPORTS
24
25 IV. CITY OF PETALUMA/PG &E - EMF DISCUSSION.
26
27 Presentation by PG &E staff of issues involved in electromagnetic fields.
28
29 Presentation by Michael Herz, PG &E EMF Coordinator.
30
31 Commissioner Healy - What level of EMF exposure will the 115Kv line running above
32 City streets (Corona Substation) emit?
33 Michael Herz - Cross - phasing to reduce magnetic fields at ground levels with this type
34 of design achieves "optimum cancellation ".
35 Planning Director Tuft - If the City supported a pole height at 60 (instead of 75) feet,
36 would PG &E spend savings on another site within the City (view corridor restoration)?
37 Michael Herz - Unfortunately, PG &E couldn't do that.
38 Commissioner Torliatt - Any soil contamination created by undergrounding?
39 Michael Herz - None known at this time.
40 Commissioner Healy - How much of an EMF exposure reduction could be realized by
41 raising the tower 10 feet?
42 Michael Herz - 15% reduction.
43
44
9
Planning Commission Minutes - January 27, 1998
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
V. CHATEAU OF PETALUMA - DISCUSSION (pt).
Discussion and direction to staff regarding processing of PUD Amendment.
Planning Director Tuft presented the staff report.
DISCUSSION:
Chairman Feibusch - Will this remain senior housing?
Planning Director Tuft - Yes.
Commissioner Bennett - If there are no changes beyond those defined in the staff report,
this should be handled administratively.
Commissioners Thompson/Torliatt Agree, administrative.
Planning Director Tuft - Answered questions regarding percentage of low /moderate
units.
Commissioner Broad - Would staff administratively approve a timeframe for
development? (Answer - Yes).
Planning Director Tuft - SPARC would see design (primarily reduction of building
mass).
Commissioner Broad - What about environmental review?
Planning Director Tuft - Will reevaluate project, as part of Administrative PUD
Amendment but believes project is still close to original.
Commissioner Broad - Consider noticing for SPARC.
Planning Director Tuft - Will notice for a PUD Amendment with follow -up to any
interested persons for full SPARC review.
A consensus was reached to handle this PUD Amendment administratively, with full
SPARC review.
VI. PROJECT STATUS:
1. Bankshot Billiards CUP Amendment - City Council denied appeal.
2. Opportunity Center Shelter - COTS has withdrawn application for
Petaluma Blvd. N. site.
VII. LIAISON REPORTS: None.
ADJOURNMENT:
min0127 / plan93
22