HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 06/09/1998Planning Commission Minutes - June 9, 1998
1 CITY OF PETAL UAL4
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
4 REGULAR MEETING June 9, 1998
s CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 PM
6 CITY HALL, PETALUMA, CA
7
8 Commissioners Present: Broad, Feibusch *, Healy, Torliatt, Thompson
9 Commissioners Absent: Bennett, Vieler
10
11 Staff: Pamela A Tuft, Planning Director
12 Vincent Smith, Principal Planner
13 Elizabeth Dunn, Assistant Planner
14
15 ' Chairperson
16
17
18 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
19
20 PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
21
22 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Questions from UGB workshops and graphics nearly
23 completed and will be distributed soon; next workshop on July 11. Consideration of UGB
24 by Planning Commission on July 14, 1998. Lafferty DEIR: Planning Commission will
25 meet jointly with Parks and Recreation on June 30th.
26
27
28 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None.
29
30 CORRESPONDENCE: Article on Watershed Management was noted. These materials
31 were referred to at a Telephone Seminar attended with Councilmember Keller on 4/9/98.
32
33
- 34
35 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
36
37 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
38
39
Planning Commission Minutes - June 9, 1998
1
2 OLD BUSINESS
4 I. MAXWELL SUBDIVISION EAST OF "D" STREET AT WINDSOR
5 DRIVE; TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP EXTENSION; CHARLES
6 AND PAULINE MAXWELL; AP NO. 019-120-045 (hg).
7
8 Continued consideration of a request to extend the expiration date for a fourteen
9 lot residential Tentative Subdivision Map by one year to May 20, 1998.
10
11 Continued from April 28, 1998 Planning Commission meeting (public hearing
12 closed).
13
14 Vin Smith presented the staff report.
15
16 Discussion:
17
18 Commissioner Healy Regarding stub street issue- might it be appropriate to require
19 right -of- -way but not full road .improvements. Question about staff not recommending
20 pathway.
21 Vin Smith Full accessibility has vital link missing, does not recommend dedication and
22 construction but would support dedication.
23 Commissioner Healy Driveway serves 3 properties there could be 3 more if adjacent
24 property develops. Question re: minimum standards for driveway. (Answer - minimum
25 20' paved.)
26 Commissioner Torliatt Remainder Maxwell property in this subdivision (adjacent to
27 urban line) . What is that property being dedicated as?
28 Vin Smith Non - development easement (a part of lot 14).
29 Commissioner Broad If driveway approval as an ultimate roadway, would it stay in the
30 same location?
31 Vin Smith Yes, as close to creek bed as it could be.
32 Commissioner Healy Regarding stub street issue, based on future development in area;
33 not appropriate to require full street standards now. Regarding trails: ridge top are easier -
34 accepts staff recommendation that it is not feasible at this time. Regarding lower trail
35 should we request our easement that way ever is used ( ?).
36 Commissioner Torliatt Regarding street: agrees with Commissioner Healy. Regarding
37 ridge trail: would like to see easement along existing Urban Limit Line to connect
"38 through County land from the park site designation on the opposite side of "D" Street; at
39 least merits an easement (no need to require improvements). Recommends look at
40 topography- might not be a straight line. Does not want to preclude for future. City
41 should retain this opportunity as an option. Recommends same for Kelly Creek; no
42 improvement, just easement dedication.
43 Commissioner Thompson Would two (2) easements be in perpetuity ?; can they be for a
44 limited number of years? Would like to hear from applicant regarding easements even
2
Planning Commission Minutes - June 9, 1998
1 though public hearing closed.
2 Commissioner Broad Open Space Easement proposed from common driveway west onto
3 creek; no additional burden placed on property owner; no improvements required.
4 Corridor should be reserved. Regarding access over ridge, from Maxwell, Planning
5 Commission should require easement providing pedestrian access over entire Maxwell
6 property. Does not want to forestall future access (no improvements required now).
7 Steve Buckley Applicant representative, 501 E. Washington: Regarding ridge walk - high
8 fire danger area. Suncrest Hill homes do not have very high water pressure and does not
9 feel it is safe. Lot 14 has major dedication for open space. Lot is very, very steep.
10 Regarding Horsch property, no problem with granting easement. Police Department did
11 not recommend a trail, and cannot support an easement to the Horsch property. If agreed,
12 would like to reorganize lot lines for lots 1 -4. Who would own and maintain? Prefers to
13 have map extended now- these discussions are hurting because of delays. Would prefer a
14 LAD over the individual property owner of the driveway.
15 Commissioner Healy Is cattle grazing going on now on adjacent property?
16 Steve Buckley There was in past, not sure now. Fire danger.
17 Commissioner Feibusch Consensus on leaving private driveway?
18 Commissioner Healy More complicated- requires dedication but no viewpoints now.
19 Commissioner Torliatt Let's not preclude a ridge trail in this part of town now. Urban
20 Limit Line may be moved in the City in SO years making a trail more likely.
21 Commissioner Healy Would like City to consider this in a more comprehensive fashion,
22 more systematic approach, could be negotiations down the road.
23 Commissioner Torliatt If lot lines are adjusted because of driveway, would this need to
24 return?
25 Commissioner Broad More than procedural request- not limited. Regarding thought
26 process- based on staff report; if Commission wants to see a ridge trail, map extension
27 should be denied. Look at it as a jigsaw puzzle, would be willing to deny map extension
28 to allow a comprehensive look at a ridge trail. Is this important enough to pursue?
29 Commissioner Healy What does the General Plan say regarding ridge trails in this part of
30 town?
31 Vin Smith There are policies discussing where trails should be located which recognize
32 that there would probably not be a continuous trail on the west side.
33 Commissioner Torliatt East side of town has a dedicated Urban Separator. Important to
34 look at possible extensions. Does not want to preclude in future.
35 Commissioner Feibusch Can we look at this issue in General Plan update?
36 Commissioners Healy/Feibusch/ Thompson Not in favor of adding condition to require
37 ridge trail.
38 Commissioners Broad/Torliatt: Want to add or deny map extension.
39
4o A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Healy
41 to grant the requested map extension with the conditions agreed to by the applicant.
42
43 Commissioner Bennett: Absent
44 Commissioner Broad: No
45 Commissioner Healy: Yes
3
Plannin Commission Minutes - June 9, 1998
1 Commissioner Thompson: Yes
2 Commissioner Torliatt: No
3 Commissioner Vieler: Absent
4 Chairman Feibusch: Yes
5
6 Planning Commission Special Conditions
7
8 1 • The easement shall be shown on the Final Map to be recorded. An easement
9 sufficient for public pedestrian access shall be dedicated along Kelly Creek within
10 the project boundaries subject to City Traffic Engineer and Planning Director
11 approval.
12
13 2. An easement sufficient for private vehicular and emergency vehicle access shall
14 be dedicated to Horsch APN 019 -120 -023 subject to City Engineer and Planning
15 Director approval prior to recordation of the Final Map.
16
17
18 NEW,BUSINESS
19 PUBLIC HEARING
20
21 I1. PETALUMA SCHOOLS, 204 DOUGLAS; AP NO. 008-161-014. (ed)
22
23 Consideration of a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning request to allow
24 administrative offices in a vacant building.
25
26 Elizabeth Dunn presented the staff report.
27
28 The public hearing was opened.
29
30 Speakers:
31
32 Commissioner Broad Question on Initial Study? How many units would minor
33 subdivision be?
34 Elizabeth Dunn Preliminary proposal is for a minor subdivision of 2 lots.
35 Commissioner Broad How can 38,000 sq. ft. allow 13 units? Answer - rounding up from
36 12.6 +.
37 Commissioner Torliatt Initial Study was to show a possible maximum for office square
38 footage; Answer - there is no proposal for expansion.
39 Greg Mitchell Concerns with proposal density of any new housing. Major concern with
40 traffic through this lot. Lot used as drag strip. Complaints have fallen on deaf ears.
41 Request barrier or speed bumps be installed. Don't let a fatality occur to make a change
42 happen.
43 Rich Burchstraud (sp)- 209 Baker St.- Traffic concerns.
44 Steve Meadows - 213 Baker - Traffic concerns; witnessed several accidents.
4
Planning Commission Minutes - June 9, 1998
1 Ricardo Ramos - 216 Baker: Traffic concerns for neighborhood as well as student
2 speeders.
3 Pat R_ oxberg (sp) 209 Baker Street: Traffic concerns. 13 more houses on this property is
4 too dense and would create even more traffic.
5
6 Public Hearing was closed.
7
8 Commissioner Feibusch Does School District own this entire lot? Is it all private
9 property?
10 Vin Smith Yes, private property, all owned by School District.
11 Commissioner Feibusch Conditions will require improvements /repairs/barriers.
12 Commissioner Torliatt Mr. Bolman, can we do anything now instead of waiting for
13 construction?
14 Pamela Tuft April letter is with Fire Department. Concerns are with emergency vehicle
15 access. `
16 Commissioner Thompson We should resolve these items now
17 Vin Smith Not reviewing site plan tonight. There is a preliminary site plan in for review
18 for a 2 -lot subdivision. Emergency access would need to be provided at time of
19 development.
20 Commissioner Torliatt Would not discuss a possible cul -de -sac at this point. Cars going
21 through vacant lot needs to be addressed now.
22 Commissioner Healy: Proposed lot looks like what will be here in future. Other ways of
23 addressing safety concerns than blocking streets. School District is requesting more
24 parking space than required - that maybe residential site should be made smaller. 11 25 Commissioner Broad What housing types would be allowed? Concerns with how this
26 project is being presented to Planning Commission. Proper environmental review should
27 be done. Initial Study is not complete, is inadequate. Traffic needs to be looked at. Lot
28 has 40 extra parking spaces- could be further subdivided or building added onto. Ultimate
29 environmental issues need to be looked at. Stunned to learn that there is a 2 -lot
30 subdivision already proposed. Traffic generation rates and impacts need to be analyzed
31 based on ultimate development buildout if zoned R -C, before taking action. This initial
32 study is deficient. Obligation to neighborhood to do a proper environmental review.
33 Vin Smith Hears Commission concurrence to develop worst case scenario and do an
34 Initial Study (traffic, etc.)
35 Commissioner Healy: Could we act to allow the School District building to proceed?
36 Defer residential action? `
37 Vin Smith Planning Commission cannot forward without recommending finding for
38 mitigated negative declaration.
39 Pamela Tuft Staff encouraged retaining businesses. Traffic Engineer indicated that traffic
40 would be lessened because of peak -hour use of School District offices. Intent to offer for
41 sale the R -C zoning district has been discussed by school district. Does not want to
42 segregate project to circumvent CEQA. Consider General Plan amendment to Mixed Use
43 and not act on R -C.
44 Commissioner Torliatt When zoning changes to Administrative Office use, the School
45 Board plans to occupy the building. Wants to see existing uses allowed to remain.
5
Planning Commission Minutes - June 9, 1998
1 Commissioner Broad When did School District acquire property?
2 Steve Bolman Applicant representative: January, 1997. Would like to proceed with
3 improvements to move District offices in. Ready to proceed with bids to occupy as early
4 as January, 1999.
5 Commissioner Broad Encourages non - segregation into distinct elements. Zoning and
6 General Plan lines would restrict access. Wants to look at traffic without zoning and
7 General Plan lines in place. Would like to hear from traffic engineer on potentially 2
8 sites.
9 Vin Smith To clarify, General Plan amendment as proposed could be entertained. Could
10 recommend to the City Council entire site be re -zoned to CO. No arbitrary line would be
11 assumed because entire site would be CO with no R -C zoning.
12 Commissioner Broad Initial Study has not been done to look at this proposal.
.13 . . Vin Smith Review has been done by Traffic Engineer and staff regarding traffic impacts;
14 the primary area of concern with regard to this proposal.
15 Commissioner Broad Not proper processing tonight. Redo an environmental review for a
16 split zoning or review for entire site to be zoned allowing School District to proceed with
17 remodeling.
18 Commissioner Torliatt Unclear why remodeling permits cannot go forward.
19 Pamela Tuft Inconsistent with zoning.
20 Commissioner Thompson Agrees with Pamela Tuft and Vin Smith to go CO on entire
21 parcel.
22
23 The public hearing was closed.
24
25 A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Healy
26 to recommend to the City Council adoption of a Negative Declaration approval of a
27 General Plan Amendment and Rezoning to CO for the entire site to allow the Petaluma
28 School District Administrative Office to relocate to 204 Douglas Street based on the
29 following findings and subject to the following conditions:
30
31 Commissioner Bennett: Absent
32 Commissioner Broad: No
33 Commissioner Healy: Yes
34 Commissioner Thompson: Yes
35 Commissioner Torliatt: No
36 Commissioner Vieler: Absent
37 Chairman Feibusch: Yes
38
39 PROJECT FINDINGS
40
41 Findings for Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact:
42
43 1. An Initial Study was prepared, proper notice was provided in accordance with
44 CEQA and local guidelines for the approval of a Negative Declaration to allow a
45 General Plan Amendment and Rezoning request:
6
Planning Commission Minutes - June 9, 1998
1
2 2_ Based upon the Initial Study and any comments received, there is no substantial
3 evidence that the project as mitigated would have a significant effect upon the
4 environment.
5
6 3. A mitigation and monitoring program is not required as no impacts were found to
7 be potentially significant.
8
9 4. The project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in
10 the Fish and Game code, either individually or cumulatively.
11
12 5. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List
13 compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
14
is 6. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Negative Declaration and considered
16 any and all comments before making a decision on the project.
17
18 7. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public
19 review at the City of Petaluma, Planning Department, City Hall, 11 English
20 Street, Petaluma, California. y
21
22 DE MI'NIVIUS FINDINGS
23
.24 The Planning Commission finds that there is no evidence before the City- that the
25 proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the
26 habitat upon which the wildlife depends. On the basis of substantial evidence, the
27 presumption of adverse effect is rebutted. A Certificate of Fee Exemption will be
28 completed and filed with the Notice of Determination for the project.
29
30 Findings for the General Plan Amendment
31
32 1. The proposed Amendment is in conformance with the Petaluma General Plan and
33 will help to implement goals, objectives and programs of the General Plan relating
34 to the development of underutilized properties ;r44 _;v-Sidy-P421 uws and
35 encouraging development within the Urban Limit Line.
36
37 2. The proposed Amendment is deemed to be in the public interest to provide for
38 orderly development of appropriate office .
39
40 3. The proposed Amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the
41 General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected.
42
43 4. The potential impacts of the proposed Amendment have been assessed and have
44 been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
45
7
Planning Commission Minutes - June 9, 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
5. The proposed Amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
Findings for the Rezoning to Administrative and Professional Offices a4d
1. The proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., to classify and
rezone a 3.06 acre parcel of Assessor's Parcel Number 008 -161 -014, to be known
as the Petaluma School District Administrative Offices, to Administrative and
Professional Offices is in conformity with the Petaluma
General Plan.
2. The public necessity, convenience and general welfare clearly permit and will be
furthered by the proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, reclassifying and
rezoning the Petaluma School District site to Administrative and Professional
Offices ap mac; �Ant; � � _�nm n�rt
3. The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been
satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study/Negative Declaration to avoid
or reduce to a level of insignificance, potential impacts generated by the proposed
Petaluma School District rezoning to Administrative and Professional Offices aW
�aci �cn ti g�_�nmr»
III. 331 LAKEVILLE STREET; ADOBE CREEK FUNERAL. HOME; AP NO.
007- 154- 027.(ed)
Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a caretaker's unit as part of a
permitted mortuary use.
Commissioner Torliatt- Abstained.
Elizabeth Dunn presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Dan Torliatt - Dave's Auto Parts, 35 Irwin Street - Concerned that 14 visitor spaces is
not enough. Consider additional parking.
Lou: Resident, 315 Lakeville: Concerns- did not receive information on this project. Did
not receive notice. Concerns with nature of business on property values; will be selling
his property.
8
Planning Commission Minutes - June 9, 1998
1 Public Hearing Closed.
2
3 Commissioner Broad Planning Commission can only address the Caretaker's unit issue;
4 no objections raised regarding this aspect.
5 Commissioner Thompson No problem with caretaker's unit; how would we deal with
6 problems regarding parking?
7 Pamela Tuft Use permit for caretakers unit is the only thing that could be addressed.
8 Applioan t: Will do everything possible to work with neighborhood.
9 Commissioner Feibusch Don't plan on having large services here? (answer: no)
10 Pamela Tuft Reads Zoning ordinance regarding funeral processions.
11 Commissioner Healy Questions regarding parking requirements.
12 Pamela Tuft Parking standards checked through building permit/tenant improvement
13 review.
14 Commissioner Broad Suggests 23 parking spaces. Jurisdiction is limited in this case.
15 Caretaker's unit is a benefit.
16
17 The public hearing was closed.
18
19 A motion was made by Commissioner Broad and seconded by Commissioner Thompson
20 to find this project exempt from CEQA and to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow
21 a Caretaker's Unit within a building to be used as a mortuary at 331 Lakeville Street
22 based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report:
23
24 Commissioner Bennett: Absent
25
Commissioner Broad:
Yes
26
Commissioner Healy:
Yes
27
Commissioner Thompson:
Yes
28
Commissioner Torliatt:
Abstain
29
Commissioner Vieler:
Absent
30
Chairman Feibusch:
Yes
31
32 Findings:
33
34 1. The proposed caretaker's unit, to be established within an existing building that is
35 to be used as a mortuary, as conditioned, conforms to the requirements of the
'36 Commercial - Highway Zoning District of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance.
37
38 2. The proposed caretaker's unit, to be established within an existing building that is
39 to be used as a mortuary, complies with the standards of Article 13, Commercial -
40 Highway Zoning District, where the minimum lot size must be at least 10,000
41 square feet (the subject property is approximately 2,000 square feet); the
42 minimum lot width must be at least 60 feet (the subject property is approximately
43 201 feet wide); the minimum lot depth must be at least 100 feet (the subject
44 property is approximately 119 feet deep); the maximum site coverage is 60% (the
45 structure occupies approximately 17% of the site); and setbacks will be
9
Planning Commission Minutes - June 9, 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
maintained as the work to be conducted is within the interior of the structure.
3. The proposed caretaker's unit, on a site with a Thoroughfare Commercial General
Plan land use designation, will conform to the requirements, intent, goals, and
policies of the Petaluma General Plan. Specifically, this proposal adheres to the
requirements and/or intent of the Petaluma General Plan where the Local
Economy Section has this objective:
(f) Encourage small and locally owned businesses.
4. The proposed caretaker's unit is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301, Class 1 when minor alterations to an
existing structure are proposed.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITION USE PEFMi IT CUP98010:
From the Building Inspection Department:
1. Verify utilities are adequate for the building (i.e., size of water, electrical and gas
service and size of sewer).
2. Responsible party is to sign the plans.
3. Indicate group occupancy, type of construction and square footage.
4. Mixed occupancy separation, as described in Chapter 3 of the 1994 UBC, must be
followed.
5. 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.
6. Provide structural calculations for all non - conventional design items.
Environmental Health:
7. Submit a Medical Waste Management Plan to Sonoma County Department of
Environmental Health for review and approval prior to receiving a Certificate of
Occupancy for the mortuary.
From the Fire Marshal's office:
8. Provide one fire extinguisher, 2AIOBC type, for each 3,000 square feet of floor
space and/or a maximum travel distance of 75 feet from the extinguisher.
10
Planning, Commission Minutes - June 9, 1998
1 9. Post address at or near main entry door - minimum four (4) inch letters on
2 contrasting background.
4 10. Post an occupant lad sign in a conspicuous place near the main exist from all
5 rooms designated as " Assembly Areas ". The sign shall read as follows:
6
7 Maximum Occupant: General 72
8
9 11. This business will require an annual fire department permit for places of
10 assembly. The permit fee of $60.00 is due and payable prior to commencement of
I use.
12
13 12. All emergency. lighting, exit sign lights, shall have two separate sources of power
14 as required in the Building Code.
15
16 13. Provide panic hardware on all required exit doors.
17
18 14. Businesses storing hazardous materials require submittal of a Hazardous Materials
19 Management Plan to the Petaluma Fire Department. Before a Certificate of
20 Occupancy is approved, the following conditions must be approved by the Office
21 of the Fire Marshal:
22
23 a. Hazardous Material Management Plan is approved.
24 b. All storage and use of hazardous materials shall be in conformance with
25 the Uniform Fire Code.
26 C. A permit for Hazardous Materials Storage and use is issued prior to
27 occupancy.
28
29 From the Planning Department:
30
31 15. a. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance
32 and Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.). All
3 City- authorized grading and construction activity shall be limited to the
34 hours between 7:00am and 6:00 rn Monday through Friday. Indoor work
35 may be conducted on Saturdays from 9:00am to 5:00pm and must not
36 exceed the decibel level as addressed within the Noise Ordinance. No
37 construction work shall be permitted on City recognized holidays and
38 Sundays.
39
40 b. At no time shall future activities exceed Performance Standards specified
-- 41 in Section 22 -301 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, and the City of
42 Petaluma 1987 General Plan.
43
44 16. Signage and striping at the southeast corner of the building shall be established
45 prior to the Certificate of Occupancy of the caretaker's unit. This notification shall
11
Planning Commission Minutes - June 9, 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
inform patrons that only hearses may park in this location.
17. The applicants shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its
boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or
employees to attack. set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when
such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable
State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicants 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.
IV. LIAISON REPORTS:
1. Petaluma Bike Advisory Committee- Next Meeting: June 10, 1998.
V. PROJECT STATUS:
1. Urban Gro -,Nth Boundan Public Hearing - July 14, 1998.
2. Election of Officers - Commissioner Feibusch requested this be held at
next meeting - June 23, 1998.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:10 PM
min0609 / plan97
12