HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/23/1998Planning Commission Minutes - September 23, 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
CITY OF PETALUMA, CA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY HALL - PETALUMA, CA
WEDNESDAY, September 23, 1998
7 :00 PM
Commissioners: Present: Bennett*, Broad, Feibusch, Healy, Torliatt, Vieler
Absent: Thompson*
Staff: Pamela A Tuft, Planning Director
Vincent C. Smith, Principal Planner
Craig Spaulding, Associate Civil Engineer
*Acting Chairperson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
MINUTES OF: September 9, 1998 were approved with corrections to discussion on
pages 1 and 6.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Sandra Shand - 617 N. Webster Street - Concerned with
overall drainage in Bantam Terrace area; concerns with cumulative effects of development
in this area on drainage.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: Commissioner Torliatt - City Council approved
Budget, Animal Control Ordinances last night; approved Wastewater Treatment Facility
comparison expenditure; PCDC Public Workshop, Monday, September 28 7PM.
CORRESPONDENCE: None.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
1
Planning Commission Minutes - September 23, 1998
1
2 CONTINUED BUSINESS:
3
4 I. BANTAM TERRACE; 700 Bantam Way, AP No. 006 -441 -022 (bl).
5
6 Request for adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of a General Plan
7 Amendment and Tentative Subdivision Map to allow a seven -lot residential
8 development on a 2.7 acre portion of the School District surplus property for
9 Petaluma Junior High School.
10
11 Continued from August 25, 1998.
12
13 Commissioner Torliatt abstained (resides within 300 feet of project).
14
15 Principal Planner Smith presented the staff report.
16
17 DISCUSSION:
18
19 Commissioner Broad -Are Lots 5,6, and 7 being split off from existing school site?
20 Principal Planner Smith - All lots are to be split off.
21 Commissioner Broad - Why wouldn't remainder of school site be designated as a
22 remainder parcel?
23 Craig Spaulding - When formal map comes in, it would be a remainder lot.
24 Commissioner Feibusch - Questions regarding undergrounding of utilities - would
25 utilities be extended from Benson Estates?
26 Craig, Spaulding - Utility details generally are part of improvement plans, not Tentative
27 Map; improvements would probably come up Bantam Way from Bodega Avenue; typical
28 condition would require frontage improvements regarding utility undergrounding.
29 Planning Director 'Tuft - Suggested adding condition requiring undergrounding of
30 utilities; requested staff discussion regarding drainage at existing site and proposed
31 improvements.
32 Principal Planner Smith - Described proposed storm drainage improvements with this
33 subdivision; all drainage from the proposed subdivision will be undergrounded in pipe
34 system (public); concerns have been expressed regarding surface runoff over school
35 property; this proposal will catch rainfill/runoff within the boundaries of the subdivision
36 and direct it to a fully piped and public system.
37 Commissioner Bennett - Will drainage be on surface of new public street?
38 Craig Spaulding — (Yes) no surface flows onto school site.
39 Commissioner Vieler - Require this system to insure that no additional runoff flows onto
40 the school ?; does existing system have capacity to accept new runoff?
41 Craig Spaulding - All systems/capacities subject to approval of Sonoma County Water
42 Agency.
43 Commissioner Healy - Questions regarding public versus private ownership of storm
44 drainage system.
45 Principal Planner Smith - Ownership of drainage system is not clear, verification will be
2
Planning Commission Minutes - September 23, 1998
1 necessary; subdivision will be creating a public system, which cannot dump into a private
2 system.
3 Commissioner Healy What if water has to go toward Bodega Avenue?
4 Principal Planner Smith - There is no proposal for that.
5 Commissioner Healy - Where does this water go into the river now?
6 Craig Spaulding - I believe it enters at the Turning Basin (down Western Street).
7 Commissioner Healy - Will the road be on top of the "levee" that is there now?
8 Principal Planner Smith - The road will be between the houses and school - not visible
9 from school.
10 .Commissioner Broad - Concerns with limited sight distance from project street onto
11 Bantam Way - is it adequate?
12 Craig Spaulding Discussed with Traffic Engineer Tilton - sight distance would have to
13 meet our Standards (Cal Trans) based on speed and grade - that is reviewed with public
14 improvement plans.
15 Principal Planner Smith - The process of approval is: Planning Commission makes
16 recommendations to the City Council on the Tentative Subdivision Map; City Council then
17 holds a public hearing with public input for final action; then the Improvement. Plans with
18 the construction details for roads and utilities and the Final Map are approved by the City
19 Council.
20 Vice -Chair Bennett - Many of the technical questions may not be able to be answered
21 tonight during Tentative Subdivision Map discussion and are typically addressed through
22 the improvement plans.
23
24 The public hearing was opened.
25
26 SPEAKERS:
27
28 Steven Hernandez - 852 'h Western Street - Last year there was water under and around
29 house for two months; this project will add more water to Western - drainage has not been
30 adequately addressed; problem will be worse, not better.
31 Stanley Shook - 720 Bantam Way - Concerns with noise - current construction in the El
32 Paseo Drive area creates noise even on Sundays (7AM to 7PM); main concern is
33 construction hours of this project - they should be Monday through Friday 7AM to 5PM,
34 no weekends - this should be a condition; what is completion time for this project, would
35 like this to be a 6 -month project, start to finish; with regard to traffic, there are excessive
36 speeds on Bantam Way now; Police have indicated they don't have the resources to
37 monitor this situation; he believes it will be very hard to exit new street - turning left will
38 be a major problem; suggested visit site now at 3PM when parents are picking children up,
39 there is a major traffic problem; parking restrictions need to be placed on Bantam
40 specifically in front of his house.
41 Gene Peal - Bantam Way - Was against School District selling this property; Bantam Way
42 is too congested now; all spaces are filled when there is a PTA meeting; no parking along
43 street now; there have been two head -on collisions.
44 Sandra Shand - 617 N. Webster - Questions regarding appeal process; regarding
45 drainage problems - the berm at edge of Benjamin and Western was plowed away; water
i
3
Planning Commission Minutes - September 23, 1998
1 enters public drain system and is diverted through field; runoff from creek already
2 overflowing creek - existing storm drain system already over - taxed; some building/grading
3 on the school property is already being done, don't they need a permit ?; where does
4 responsibility he for insuring proper drainage? may be contacting an attorney and an
5 engineer to advise her; drainage system not adequate to handle existing properties.
6 Michael. Smith - Developer - This is a 3 -lot subdivision, not a 7 -lot subdivision (referred
7 to his approved 4 -lot Parcel Map); in agreement with all conditions and with shorter
8 construction hour schedule; hydrology studies will be done - improvements may have to
9 be done when studies are completed; did not know there was a problem with sight
10 distance; would be glad to add a stop light/sign.
11 Pamela Torliatt - 2710 TownView - Questions/concerns regarding drainage issues;
12 should have access for pedestrians and bikes at top of hill on Bantam along the street and
13 through property and school, current access is not "friendly"; how will this be designed to
14 be safe for children - look at this in detail, is there a way to create access from this
15 proposed street to back of the school? disappointed with lack of pedestrian access from El
16 Paseo over hill; if school property is remainder piece, doesn't Planning Commission have
17 authority to require School District to address drainage problems: drainage channel needs
18 to be, kept clear - School District has to deal with this issue - not the City; look at reality
19 of cumulative effect on Payran; require landscaping, tree planting on ridgeline; hours of
20 construction need to be restricted; water tanker at nearby project is very loud; look at
21 traffic calming measures for Bantam; existing path (N. Webster to Petaluma Jr. High)
22 connect proposed street to existing path - would benefit school children.
23 Paul Varrea - Applicant/developer - According to the school district, they are exempt
24 from.the Map Act - this would not be a remainder parcel.
25 Vice -Chair Bennett - Mr. Spaulding, please comment on flooding/drainage issues.
26 Craig Spaulding - Appreciates neighborhood input; problem at lower end of school site;
27 on -going maintenance problem on school property.
28 Vice -Chair Bennett — Asked if drainage from project should bypass problem area? (yes) -
29 Craig Spaulding.
30 Craig Spaulding — Capacity question needs to be answered by the developer; the Sonoma
31 County Water Agency calls for a 10 -year storm capacity; the water should remain in the
32 system; City does not want to take on a private system.
33 Vice =Chair Bennett — Who is responsible to prevent flooding and who do you go to if
34 flooding occurs?
35 Craig Spaulding — Maintenance of the ditch lies with the school district; needs to be
36 opened up and maintained; the Sonoma County Water Agency is responsible for
37 reviewing.
38 Principal Planner Smith — There are two drainage conditions on the property —
39 underground drainage condition and open drainage ditch; water from this project will
4o bypass this drainage ditch in a pipe along Bantam Way and through the School property to
41 N. Webster remaining underground.
42 Commissioner Healy — What is the timeframe for drainage issues to be approved?
43 Craig Spaulding — Prior to the Final Map.
44 Principal Planner Smith — Will provide right -of -way addition for traffic/bike and
45 pedestrian access to provide safety; pathway used by students may not be an established
Planning Commission Minutes - September 23, 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
easement.
Planning Director Tuft — Recommend condition be added to require developer to pay
fair share of signal at Bantam Way and Bodega Avenue.
Principal Planner Vin Smith — Materials storage area is for the school, not this
proposed subdivision.
Planning Director Tuft — School improvements (classrooms) are exempt from City
review; possible need for screening at ridgeline; could have additional condition added by
the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Vieler — Regarding drainage on school property, does City have any
jurisdiction? (no)
Planning Director Tuft — Recommend staff could contact School District and ask for
participation/cooperation in resolving existing drainage issues.
Commissioner Vieler — Asked for clarification regarding public drainage system versus
private.
Principal Planner Smith = If system is private, the existing system may have to be
upgraded if the City accepted responsibility.
Pamela Torliatt — School needs to deal with and pay for on -site drainage problems; why
would City want to accept inadequate system?
Commissioner Vieler — Are we obligated to use the Sonoma County Water Agency
requirements ?, can the City require higher standards since the Sonoma County Water
Agency's standards don't seem to be adequate?
Planning Director Tuft — The City could decide to use a higher standard — that would be
a policy decision by City Council.
Commissioner Vieler — At what point do we address inadequacy of the Sonoma County
Water Agency standards ?; there are two things occurring: 1) new subdivisions; and 2)
upgrade of existing systems; need long range direction from the City Council.
Craig Spaulding — At the request of the Commission, the stormdrain system from the
river to this site was described - there is 66" pipe at river; 60" up Western Avenue; 72"
pipe along English Street; 60" at Upham Street; 24" at Baker Street/Western Avenue; 24
up to Sonoma Avenue, 24" at Webster; 20" at school site — 15" up Bantam Way.
Commissioner Vieler — Why is berm being graded down?
Principal Planner Smith — Berm is not an issue on this project, as it is located at the
opposite end of the project area and is not part of the subdivision proposal; surface
drainage causing concern drains to private system.
Vice -Chair Bennett — There are separate drainage issues here, please clarify.
Pamela Torliatt— Described drainage problems.
Craig Spaulding — Identified drainage swale area on school district property as
inadequate; the problem lies in lack of maintenance by school district.
Commissioner Vieler — Concerned with traffic speeds at proposed street on Bantam Way
(two stop signs) - feels speed should. be 25mph; a temporary parking restriction on
Bantam Way is a good idea; if school is not answerable to the City, school wants to sell
property; can City tell school district they need to correct existing conditions; can not
approve project unless drainage issues are addressed.
Commissioner Broad — Agrees with Commissioner Vieler regarding adding a condition
requiring school to address existing drainage problems along Webster and Western
G
Planning Commission Minutes - September 23, 1998
1 Streets; could be continued to see if this issue can be resolved; traffic and public safety
2 issues need to be resolved; will not vote on this project until the Engineering staff can
3 state there would be no danger; cannot vote for approval of a Mitigation Negative
4 Declaration with the outstanding safety issues, regarding Administrative Site Plan and
5 Architectural Review Committee (SPARC) approval, both landscaping and house design
6 should be subject to review to consider visual prominence; privacy issues with El Paseo
7 Drive house; the 20' setback along El Paseo Drive is down to 10' setbacks; feels should
8 be kept at 20' setbacks along common property line with El Paseo Drive lots; Lot 5 has
9 substandard setbacks?
10 Planning Director Tuft — Staff supports 20' rear setbacks from El Paseo Drive lots;
11 street side setbacks on Lot 5 could require more than 10', but 20' might create a shallow
12 building orientation; Lot 5 frontage oriented to entry street rather than cul -de -sac.
13 Commissioner Feibusch — Agrees with Commissioners Broad and Vieler — there are too
14 many unanswered questions; would like clarification on drainage /traffic /ridgeline concerns
15 and undergrounding of utilities issues.
16 Commissioner Healy — Largely agrees with other Commissioners — there are too many
17 unanswered questions; suggested delays are: continue drainage issue until there are more
18 answers (4 or 5 weeks), school district's cooperation for maintenance of drainage- explore
19 with school district, traffic calming measures should be explored to consider appropriate
20 treatment, pedestrian and bicycle access through the school is not related to this project
21 but school district should be encouraged to look at this, construction hours may be further
22 modified because of disruption to nearby classrooms.
23 Vice -Chair Bennett — Agrees with Commissioners' previous comments - should be able
24 to require school district to maintain drainage system, continue to future agenda
25 flooding/traffic and ridgeline issue, regarding traffic agrees with no parking along Bantam
26 Way; need traffic calming measures as a condition.
27 Commissioner Vieler — Concept that all construction would be done at once (benefits
28 neighbors and school); readdress at the end of tonight's meeting to discuss Sonoma
29 County Water Agency standards.
30 Vice -Chair Bennett — Not prepared to discuss that tonight; recommends continuation of
31 project.
32 Planning Director Tuft Recommends project hearing be continued to October 27,
33 1998, 'Planning Commission meeting (Public Hearing).
34 Principal Planner Smith - Staff will address the following issues before the October 27
35 Planning Commission meeting:
36
37 1. Drainage solution for school site.
38 2. Payment of fair -share of traffic signal at Bantam Way and Bodega Avenue.
39 3. Undergrounding of utilities.
40 4. Hours of construction - parking restriction on Bantam Way.
41 5. Traffic calming devices to be reviewed by an ad -hoc committee of Traffic Advisory
42 Committee members.
43
44
45
R
Planning Commission Minutes - September 23, 1998
1 NEW BUSINESS:
2
3 II. GREAT PETALUMA MILL; 6 Petaluma Blvd. N.; AP No. 008 -054 -004
4 and 005(vs).
5
6 Consideration. of architectural alterations and building additions to the Petaluma
7 Boulevard, `B" Street, and River elevations. A sign program is also proposed for
8 all exterior signs.
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
Principal Planner Smith presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Commissioner Feibusch - Asked for clarification regarding historic review of awning?
Principal Planner Smith - Gave clarification.
Commissioner Broad - Were there site plans for this project ?; where are the additions?
Mary Dooley - Presented site design and showed additions (shaded areas).
.Commissioner Broad - How many square feet of new construction is there?
Ozbornodooli Architects - Under 2,000 Square feet.
Frank Marinello - owner /developer representative - Some of the shaded area is new
construction but not new square footage (overhangs); will be looking for a lot line
adjustment in future for the building corner shown on the railroad property.
Commissioner Broad - Did Historic Committee receive a site plan?; what is the
relationship of this project to the River Access and Enhancement Plan?
Principal Planner Smith - Yes; the Historic Committee received a site plan; the River
Access Plan does not apply in this case; the trail is shown on the railroad right -of -way and
the River Plan does not include setbacks.
Commissioner Broad - Regarding signs and lighting, what authority do we have ?; is
exterior lighting our review?
Principal Planner Smith - The Historic Committee will be reviewing for the final
approval (lighting and signage); sign and lighting design is not fully developed - it will go
through Historic review, not Planning Commission.
Commissioner Broad - Are the existing exterior signs temporary?; are they in
compliance?
Principal Planner Smith - They are not approved permanent signs.
Commissioner Healy - Regarding the Draft Downtown Design Guidelines, are there any
inconsistencies with this project?
- Principal Planner Smith - (No); conclusion was that it meets the Secretary of Interior's
Standards.
Frank Marinello - Owner did a third party review of historic consistency of building;
design changes are to lure people back inside the Mill.
The public hearing was closed.
7
Planning Commission Minutes - September 23, 1998
1
2 Commissioner Healy — Regarding condition of the walkway, improvements were
3 required.
4 Frank Marinello — Has made some improvements but cannot make improvements to
5 property owned by the Railroad; has discussed this with staff.
6 Commissioner Healy — Supports staff recommendations.
7 Commissioner Feibusch — Agrees with Historic Committee recommendations.
8 Commissioner Broad — Has no problem with additions; encouraged staff to get more
9 copies of site plans and graphics for the Historic Committee; is concerned with lighting
10 and signs in both areas, as too much light or signs could detract from the historic element
11 of the building; temporary signs need to be monitored.
12 Commissioner Vieler — Requested applicant review changes proposed.
13 Frank Marinello — Described proposed exterior changes.
14 Vice - :Chair Bennett — Applauds exterior changes.
15
16 A motion was made by Commissioner Healy and seconded by Commissioner Vieler to
17 adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the requested exterior modifications
18 to the Great Petaluma NO based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed
19 below:
20
21 Commissioner Bennett: yes
22 Commissioner Broad: yes
23 Commissioner Feibusch: yes
24 Commissioner Healy: yes
25 Commissioner Torliatt: abstain
26 Commissioner Vieler: yes
27 Chairman Thompson: absent
28
29 Design Findings
30
31 1. The design of the proposed exterior changes to the Great Petaluma Mill,
32 incorporating the suggested conditions of approval, satisfies the design
33 intent/objectives of the General Plan and the Secretary of Interior Standards for
34 Historic Building Rehabilitation by demonstrating a well conceived and attractive
35 approach to exterior renovation that will be harmonious with the Great Petaluma
36 Mill architecture and serve to enhance the City's image.
37
38 2. The Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee finds that the proposed work
39 will not adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics of the building,
40 nor will the improvements impact the historical, architectural or aesthetic interest
41 or value of the landmark building and its site. The proposed improvements are in
42 keeping with the existing materials, scale, texture and rhythm of the building and
43 will help to establish a this building as a viable commercial shopping center within
44 the Central Business District of the City of Petaluma.
45
46 3. The Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee finds that the proposed work
8
Planning Commission Minutes - September 23, 1998
1 will not adversely affect the contribution this building makes to the Petaluma
2 Commercial National Register Historic District nor will the 'improvements impact
3 the building's relationship to the surroundings. The proposed improvements are in
4 keeping with the existing materials, scale, texture and rhythm of the district and
5 continue to portray this building as a converted industrial building, successfully re-
6 use the building and property for a consistent commercial center and support the
7 goals and policies of the Central Business District plan.
8
9 Conditions
10
11 1. All approved new exterior doorways shall have consistent materials and design
12 details. The following new doorways are approved: the Petaluma Boulevard
13 North elevation (window converted to door); the two main entrances on the `B"
14 Street elevation and the two new doorways to the west of the main entrances; and,
15 the new doorway at the Riverfront elevation.
16
17 2. The proposed dormer over the primary entrance on `B" Street is the approved
18 alternative. The windows shall have a size, shape and material similar to and
19 consistent with the windows above the canopy on this elevation.
20
21 3. The Sign Program is not a part of this approval. A separate approval is required
22 for the proposed sign program.
23
24 4. All additions shall be installed to be removable with minimal disturbance /damage
25 to the existing historic building. Every effort shall be made to retainlre -use
26 historic windows.
27
28 STANDARD SPARC CONDITIONS
29
30 5. All work within the public right -of -way requires an excavation permit from the
31 Department of Public Works.
32 6. Construction activities shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance and the Municipal
33 Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.).
34 7. The colors and exterior materials of construction of the new exterior changes and
35 the existing building shall match.
36 8. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be shown on plans subject to staff review and
37 approval. All lights attached to buildings shall provide a soft "wash' of light
38 against the wall. All lights shall conform to City Performance standards and shall
39 compliment building architecture.
40
41 9. The applicant/developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of any
42 of its boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action
9
Planning Commission Minutes - September 23, 1998
1 or proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officer, or
2 employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of the project when
3 such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable
4 State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicants/developer
5 of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense.
6 Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a
7 defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees
8 and costs, and the City defends the action in good faith.
9 MITIGATION MEASURES (CULTURAL RESOURCES)
10
11 10. The proposed relocated stairway on the Petaluma Boulevard North elevation shall
12 be designed as a covered, open, metal staircase with an authentic industrial
13 character. No siding shall be provided for the proposed staircase. The design of
14 the stairway shall be submitted as part of the building permit plans and shall be
15 reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a
16 building permit.
17
18 11. The existing window opening on the Petaluma Boulevard North elevation near the
19 building corner with the `B" Street elevation shall be retained as a window and not
20 converted to a doorway.
21
22 12. The existing window on the `B" Street elevation, closest to the Petaluma
23 Boulevard North elevation, shall be retained as a window and not converted to a
24 doorway. The adjacent two wall openings shall be permitted to be converted to
25 doorways.
26
27 13. All approved new exterior doorways shall have consistent materials and design
28 details. The following new doorways are approved: The Petaluma Boulevard
29 North elevation; the two main entrances on the `B" Street elevation, and the two
30 new doorways to the west of the main entrances; and the new doorway at the
31 Riverfront elevation.
32
33 14. The proposed dormer over the primary entrance on `B" Street is the approved
34 alternative. The windows shall have a size, shape and material similar to and
35 consistent with the windows above the canopy on this elevation.
36
37 15, The Sign Program is not a part of this approval. A separate approval is required
38 for the proposed sign program.
39
40
41 III. LIAISON REPORTS:
42
43 Commissioner Healy — Central Petaluma Specific Plan meeting will be held on
44 October 1, 1998, at 6:00pm at Senior Center to review Working Draft Plan — close
10
Planning Commission Minutes - September 23, 1998
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
to culmination. Agendize Sonoma County Water Standards to a later meeting -
major shift of City Policy to approach seriously.
Planning Director Tuft — Detention/Retention ponds discussion by City Council
will be forthcoming from Tom Hargis.
Commissioner Vieler — New subdivision criteria; there are immediate issues;
would feel more comfortable to upsize pipes going into this project discussed
previously tonight.
Vice -Chair Bennett — This would be a comprehensive policy change.
Commissioner Vieler — Could we look at this subdivision with anticipation of this
in the future?
Principal Planner Smith — Direction from City Council and Planning Commission
is to try not to significantly impact the downstream flooding; some kind of
detention/retention requirements are being discussed by Engineering;
detention/retention the most probable solution to drainage capacity issues.
ADJOURNMENT: 10:15pm
s\paplan4ninutes \0923
11