HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/09/1996Planning Commission Minutes - July 9, 1996
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
CITY OF PETALUMA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY HALL - PETALUMA, CA
JULY 9, 1996 _
7:00 PM
Commissioners Present: Feibusch, Rahman *, Read, Todiatt, Wick Absent: Thompson
Staff. James McCann, Principal Planner
Jennifer Barrett, Senior Planner
Vincent Smith, Senior Planner
* Chairperson
PLEDGE OF ALLE GIANCE.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of June 11 and June 25, 1996 were approved with
corrections.
PUBLIC COM 1EENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Read attended a workshop entitled
"Proper Behavior During Planning Commission Hearings" and presented a handout for
distribution.
CORRESPONDENCE: None.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Within fourteen (14) calendar days following the date of a
decision of the Planning Commission, the decision may be appealed to the City Council by
the applicant or by any other interested party. If no appeal is made within that time, the
decision shall be final. An appeal shall be addressed to the Council in writing and shall be
filed with the City Clerk. Said appeal shall be accompanied by the appeal fee as specified
by Resolution 92- 251- N.C.S. as adopted by the City Council. The appeal shall state
specifically the grounds for the appeal and the relief sought by the appellant.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on agenda.
1
Planning Commission Minutes - July 9, 1996
1
2 OLD BUSINESS:
3 (Public Hearing closed at June 25 meetine.)
4
5 L PAMELA PLACE H; 901 and 911 SUNNY SLOPE ROAD; AP NO'S 019-
6 201 -010, 011, 012, 017, 018; FILE NO. TSM96003(vcs).
7
8 Consideration of a request to rezone a 4.98 acre site at 901 and 911 Sunny Slope
9 Road to Planned Unit Development District and to subdivide the site into
10 residential lots to be served by a new public street. The following actions are
11 necessary: 1) Determination that further environmental review is not required
12 pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15162(a) of the California Environmental
13 Quality Act (CEQA); 2) Rezoning of the 4.98 acre site to Planned Unit
14 Development (PUD) District; 3) approval of the PUD Development Plan and
15 Standards; and 4) approval of Tentative Subdivision Map to create 10 residential
16 lots.
17
18 Senior Planner Smith presented the staff report.
19
20 Commissioner vonRaesfeld abstained (was not in attendance at last meeting and was
21 unable to view tapes).
22
23 COMMISSION DISCUSSION
24
25 Commissioner Read - (to staff) - What assurance is there that development on the
26 remaining lot (by virtue of the Lot Line Adjustment) this will remain R -1? clarify drainage
27 issues.
28 Senior Planner Smith - Defer drainage questions to City Engineer Hargis; Lot Line
29 Adjustment processed - this lot will be governed by the R -1, 20,000 standards - 12 lots
30 total - no further development potential available for this site.
31 Commissioner Wick - Subdivision Map Act - ultimate development of entire site - why is
32 this remainder parcel not being reviewed?
33 Principal Planner McCann - Clarified zoning on adjacent parcel - it is a separate legal
34 parcel.
35 Commissioner Wick This project may affect this adjacent parcel in the future.
36 Commissioner Read - One day remainder parcel will be developed; will need to address
37 for "big picture ".
38 City Engineer Harms - (Viewed tape of previous meeting); drainagelcul- de-sac issues;
39 subdivision process - this type of detail requested by the Commission is usually provided
40 at Final Map stage; adequate drainage facilities are present to accommodate the additional
41 drainage created by this development; fits into Master Drainage Plan scheme.
42 Commissioner Torliatt - Will the two proposed drainage systems connect?
43 City Engineer Hargis - Yes - hillside area routed into pipe directed out onto street.
44 Commissioner Torliatt - Questions regarding fill.
45 Commissioner Wick - More clarification of drainage.
2
Planning Commission Minutes - July 9, 1996
1 City Engineer Hargis - 100 -year flood can be contained within pipe system leading to
2 Jonas Lane; introduced/hammerhead issue: cul-de -sac - viewed some existing cul-de -sacs
3 and hammerheads; cul-de -sac standard adopted in the 1972 Subdivision Ordinance; City
4 has allowed hammerhead designs very selectively in hard to develop areas; hammerhead
5 design is far from optimal approach; emergency vehicle turn-around is impaired with the
6 hammerhead design; if there is a reasonable way to provide a cul -de -sac, one should be
7 provided rather than a hammerhead.
8 Commissioner Wick - Question regarding grading impacts resulting from cul-de -sac
9 design.
10 City Engineer Hargis - Existing house precludes locating the cul -de -sac in most logical
11 place; retaining wall may be necessary near existing house; alternative - move cul-de -sac
12 farther up the hill (more severe grading); discussed grading alternatives utilizing cul-de -sac
13 design.
14 Commissioner Read - Are current owners to retain ownership of adjacent parcel?
15 Larry Jonas - Applicant - Lots 14 under one ownership; presented pictures of existing
16 cul- de- sacs/landscape assessment district.
17 Fire Chief Terry Krout - Commission should take a field trip to ride in fire truck to view
18 cul- de- sac/hammerhead turn- arounds and general circulation conditions; hammerheads
19 don't work; Planning and Engineering working to help Fire Department meet safety goals
20 with street design requirements; look very seriously at public safety issues raised by this
21 proposal; there are alternatives that will be a win -win for everyone.
22 Commissioner Rahman - Would like to see a discussion of this issue at another Planning
23 Commission meeting.
24 Fire Chief Krout - This issue will continue to be a problem as more in -fill projects are
25 proposed.
26 Commissioner Read - If a cul-de -sac were provided would you be in favor of this project?
27 Fire Chief Krout - Yes.
28 Larry Jonas - Per the Sunnyslope EIR - would like to retain rural feel of this area; cul -de-
29 sac is an aesthetic issue; 6 foot elevation change - hammerhead will require much less
30 grading, topography dictates hammerhead to limit grading and to retain rural feel.
31 Commissioner Rahman - Safety shouldn't be sacrificed for aesthetics.
32 Commissioner Torliatt - Is landscaping being required in middle of cul-de -sac?
33 Landscaped?
34 Principal Planner McCann - Yes, many options with more/less landscaping; could give
35 developer options.
36 Commissioner Rahman - If Commission decides cul -de -sac is necessary, does applicant
37 need to return with redesign?
38 Principal Planner McCann - No, but the Commission should be as specific as possible to
39 Council with your recommendation.
'40 Commissioner Torliatt - In favor of cul-de -sac.
41 Commissioner Read - Cul -de -sac is necessary.
42 Principal Planner McCann - Street width can be designed as narrow as safety allows;
43 responded to comments/questions.
3
Planning Commission Minutes - July 9, 1996
1 Commissioner Wick - Discussed neighbors request to limit home construction on Lots 14
2 to single - story; finds such a restriction to be unfair and inappropriate (other
3 Commissioners agree).
4
5 A motion was made by Commissioner Torliatt and seconded by Commissioner Wick to
6 recommend to the City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, approval of
7 the rezoning of the 4.98 acre site to Planned Unit Development (PUD) District and
8 approval of the PUD Development Plan and Standards and approval of the Tentative Map
9 to create 10 single - family lots based on the findings and conditions listed below and
10 including the following: replace the proposed hammerhead with a cul- de-sac at the end of
11 the street (between Lots 4 and 9); utilize a 28' street width; maintain landscaping within
12 the public right -of -way through a Landscape Assessment District; sidewalks should be
13 provided on both sides of street; home construction on Lots 14 require full SPARC
14 review with emphasis on aesthetics, massing, privacy unpacts etc.; amend the PUD
15 Guidelines to establish minimum rearyard setbacks of 35'.
16
:7 Commissioner Read: Yes
18 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
19 Commissioner Thompson: Absent
20 Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
21 Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Abstain
22 Commissioner Wick: Yes
23 Chairperson Rahman: Yes
24
25 Environmental Findings
26
27 1. An Initial Study has been prepared and properly noticed for Pamela Place II in
28 accordance with CEQA and local guidelines.
29 2. Based on the Initial Study and comments received, potential impacts could be avoided
30 or reduced to a level of insignificance by the application of mitigation measures. There
31 is no substantial evidence that the Pamela Place II proposed development, as
32 mitigated, would have a significant impact on the environment.
33 3. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been incorporated into the June 4, 1996 Initial
34 Study/Negative Declaration as an attachment and will ensure compliance with all
35 required Mitigation Measures.
36 4. Although not considered to be significant under the analysis of the Sunny Slope
37 Annexation FEIR, the project will have a cumulative impact to wildlife resources as
38 defined in the Fish and Game code, and therefore is subject to the required Fish and
39 Game filing fees.
40 5. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled
41 by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
42 6. The Planning Commission reviewed the June 4, 1996 Initial Study/Negative
43 Declaration and considered the comments before making a decision on the project.
44 7. The Planning Commission finds that the potential grading and drainage impacts
45 resulting from the Pamela Place II subdivision will be adequately mitigated through.
46 modification of the proposed grading plan to direct future drainage, to the extent
47 feasible, towards the proposed public street. This requirement ensures that the storm
4
Planning Commission Minutes - July 9, 1996
1 drain system will be maintained to City Standards and continue to provide drainage
2 according to the design plan. The installation of grading and drainage improvements
3 designed to City and Sonoma County Water Agency standards will also reduce
4 potential site disturbance impacts to less than significant.
5 8. The Planning Commission finds that the potential impacts to Plant Life (i.e. Tree
6 Removal) will be adequately mitigated through: the implementation of tree protection
7 measures for those trees to be retained on the property, and, the replacement of any
8 tree 6 inch in diameter or greater with two new 15 gallon trees of an appropriate
9 species approved by Planning Department staff.
10 9. The Planning Commission finds that the potential aesthetic impacts resulting from the
11 proposed development will be adequately mitigated through the establishment of
12 architectural design standards for application to lot - specific development proposals
13 and administrative SPARC review of design plans for all lots.
14
15 Findings for Rezoning to PUD
16 1. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Amendment to the PUD Zoning
17 District established as part of the Sunny Slope Annexation for APN's 019 - 201 -010,
18 011, 012, 017, 018 is in conformity with the density range of the Suburban General
19 Plan Designation and the policies of the General Plan which encourage sensitive
20 development of infill and hillside sites.
21 2. The Planning Commission finds that based on the original analysis of the Sunny Slope
22 Annexation and Assessment District, the public necessity, convenience and general
23 welfare will be furthered by the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to
24 reclassify this site to Planned Unit Development for Pamela Place II.
25 3. The Planning Commission finds that the requirements of the California Environmental
26 Quality Act (CEQA) have been satisfied through the preparation of an Initial
27 Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance,
28 potential adverse environmental impacts generated by the proposed Pamela Place H
29 PUD.
30
31 Findings for Approval of the PUD Development Plan and Standards
32 1. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Pamela Place II PUD District is on
33 property which has suitable relationship and access to one or more thoroughfares
34 (Sunny Slope Road, "I" and "D" Streets), and pursuant to the analysis in the FEIR and
35 subsequent improvements, these thoroughfares are adequate to carry any additional
36 traffic generated by the development.
37 2. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Pamela Place II development
38 presents a unified and organized arrangement of buildings consistent with the buildings
39 in the surrounding neighborhood and that the facilities serving the proposed
z 40 development are appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby properties. The
41 Planning Commission also finds that the development proposes adequate landscaping
42 and screening ensuring compatibility with surrounding uses.
43 3. The Planning Commission finds that the location of the proposed uses on the flatter
44 portion of the site preserves and protects the natural and scenic 'qualities of the site.
s 45 The Planning Commission further finds that adequate available public and private
46 spaces are designated on the PUD Development Plan.
47 4. The Planning Commission finds that the development of Pamela Place II in the manner
48 proposed and as conditioned: 1) will not be detrimental to the public welfare as all
49 potentially significant environmental impacts have been reduced to a level of
Planning Commission Minutes - July 9, 1996
1 insignificance according to the June 4, 1996 Initial Study; 2) will be in the best
2 interests of the City; and 3) will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the
3 zoning regulations of the City of Petaluma and with the Petaluma General as was
4 determined upon the certification of the Sunny Slope FE1R and Annexation.
5
6 Findings for Tentative Subdivision Man
7 1. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Pamela Place II Subdivision Map, as
8 conditioned and at a density of 2 units per acre in is general conformity with the
9 Suburban land use category and consistent with other applicable provisions of the
10 General Plan.
11 2
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 4
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Pamela Place II Subdivision Map, as
conditioned is in conformance with the standards and intent of the Hillside Residential
Combining District in that the primary construction activities will be located on the
flatter portion of the site. The Planning Commission fin ther finds that the proposed
development is consistent with the PUD Zoning District, and other applicable
provisions of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed Pamela Place II Subdivision Map, as
conditioned, is in general conformance with the Petaluma Subdivision Ordinance and
other applicable provisions of the Petaluma Municipal Code (PMC).
Pursuant to Ordinance 1994 N.C.S., which regulates access for lots to public streets,
the most logical development of the land requires that proposed Lots 9 and 10 be
served by a private driveway within an easement in order to minimiz hillside grading
impacts, and establish lotting patterns for the Pamela Place II Subdivision which are
consistent with the neighboring development.
The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act have been met through
preparation of an Initial Study and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, to
avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance, potential impacts of the Pamela Place II
Subdivision.
Proiect Conditions
Mitigation Measures
All Mitigation and Monitoring Measures contained in the June 4, 1996 Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program for
Pamela Place II, shall be incorporated into the PUD Development Plan and the
Improvement Plans for the Final Subdivision Map as applicable.
Planned Unit Development Conditions:
41 1. The PUD Development Plan (Site Plan), the PUD Landscaping and Fencing Plan, and
42 the Development Guidelines shall be amended according to the conditions of approval
43 contained herein and reviewed and approved by SPARC prior to Final Map approval.
44
45 2. A full scale reproducible copy of the PUD Development Plan, Landscaping and
46 Fencing Plan and a final copy of the Development Guidelines as approved by staff shall
47 be submitted to the Planning Department prior to approval of the Final Map.
48
49 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for a home within the Pamela Place II
50 PUD, the developer shall first apply for, and receive Administrative SPARC approval of
51 the proposed home design.
6
Planning Commission Minutes - July 9, 1996
1
G
�i.
.�
it
1
2 4. The PUD Development Guidelines shall be amended to: 1) establish a minimum
3 rear yard setback of 35' (front yard setbacks may be reduced to achieve the
4 enlarged rearyard setback); 2) require full SPARC review /approval of home
5 construction proosed for Lots 1-4. SPARC review shall emphasize appropriate
6 massing, design and measures to reduce /avoid privacy impacts to adjacent
7 homes.
8
9 Tentative Subdivision Conditions
1 0
11 1. The applicant/developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of
12 its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
13 proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or employees to
14 attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the tentative/parcel map when such
15 claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37 of
16 the State Subdivision Map Act. The City shall promptly notify the applicant/developer
17 of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall coordinate fully in the
18. defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating
19 in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees
20 and costs, and the City defends the action in good faith.
21
22 2. All existing trees with a trunk diameter of six inches or greater shall be shown on map
23 and improvement plans and preserved where possible, subject to staff determination.
24 Any of these trees to be removed shall be replaced on a two- to-one basis. Two 15
25 gallon trees shall be planted for each one to be removed, species and location subject
26 to staff approval.
27
28 3. The developer shall be responsible for complying with the General Plan program
29 regarding provision of affordable housing units. One option for compliance is payment
30 of In -Lieu Housing fees.
31
32 4. All street lights used within this development shall have standard metal fixtures
33 dedicated to the City for ownership and maintenance. Prior to City acceptance, the
34 developer shall verify all lights meet PG &E's LS2 rating system.
35
36 5. This development may be dependent upon utility improvements to be installed by
37 adjacent developments. Appropriate calculations shall be submitted to verify their
38 adequacy. If off -site improvements are required, as determined by the City Engineer,
39 they shall be installed concurrent with these improvements.
40
41 6. Soils with expansion index greater than 20 require special design foundation per
42 Uniform Building Code 2904(b).
43
44 7. All signing and striping shall conform to City Standards.
45
- 46 8. All landscaping and irrigation systems within the public right -of -way, street tree
47 planting strips and landscape islands shall be maintained through an Assessment
48 District, subject to approval of the City Council concurrently with the approval of the
49 Final Map. Landscaping and irrigation systems within the public right -of -way shall be
50 designed to standards acceptable to the City of Petaluma. Cost of formation of the
51 required Assessment District shall be borne by the project proponent. Street lighting
52 operations and maintenance shall be incorporated into the Landscape/Lighting
53 Assessment District, subject to staff determination prior to Final Map approval.
54
7
Planning Commission Minutes - July 9, 1996
1 9. All existing overhead utility lines traversing or serving existing units on the subject
2 property shall be converted to underground facilities in accordance with the Municipal
3 Code and all new utilities shall be underground, subject to staff review and approval.
4
5 10. Drainage and grading design shall be in conformance with the Sonoma County Water
6 Agency Flood Control Design Criteria, subject to approval of the City Engineer.
10
11 12. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions of the Fire Marshal:
12
13 a. Locate fire hydrants to the satisfaction of the City Fire Inspector.
14
15 b. All roof covering material shall have a Class "B" rating or better, treated in
16 accordance with the Uniform Building Code, Standard 32.7.
17
18 C. All roof covering materials applied as exterior wall covering shall have a
19 fire rating of Class 'B ", treated in accordance with the UBC Standard 32.7,
2 0 as per Ordinance 1744 of the City of Petaluma
21
22 d. Provide fire suppression system at normal sources of ignition. These areas
23 are specifically at clothes dryers, kitchen stoves, furnaces, water heaters,
24 fireplaces, and in attic areas at vents and chimneys for these appliances and
25 equipment.
26
27 13. The following shall be incorporated to staff approval:
28
29 a. Revegetation of areas damaged or destroyed by construction of access or
30 storm drains shall be implemented to restore full habitat value.
31
3 2 b. Following design approval, a system to monitor and inspect construction
33 activities shall be required. This shall include precise definition of
34 protected areas, rigid fencing of those areas, and monitoring development
35 to ensure protection in those specified areas.
36
37 C. Temporary protective fencing with in- ground poles shall be erected at the
38 drip line of all trees to be preserved. The fencing shall be erected prior to
39 any grading/construction activity and subject to staff inspection - prior to
40 grading permit issuance.
41
42 16. Any signs erected to advertise or direct persons to the project shall meet the
43 requirements of the City Sign Ordinance and obtain a sign permit from the City.
44
45 17. The Tentative Map shall be amended prior to submittal for Final Map review and
46 approval to reflect all applicable modifications required under the PUD conditions of
47 approval. Said map amendment shall meet specifications of the City Engineer and
48 Planning Director and shall also incorporate any SPARC conditions of approval
49 pertinent to the map.
50
51 18. Any labeling errors or other erroneous information appearing on the map,
52 development or landscape plans shall be corrected prior to Final Map approval.
53
8
Planning Commission Minutes - July 9, 1996
1 19. If positive lot drainage cannot be obtained, then all backyard drainage control shall be
2 within an underground pipe system with surface catchment swales and inlets.
3
4 20. A master landscape plan of the street front areas shall be provided for SPARC
5 approval, prior to issuance of a building permit. The landscape plan shall include
6 street trees at maximum spacing of 25 feet o.c. placed within two, feet of the back
7 of the sidewalk with linear root barriers, planting design and species to staff
8 approval. Landscape shall be installed prior to issuance of Certificate of
9 Occupancy.
10 -
l i 21. The proposed hammerhead shall be replaced with a cul-de -sac of standard
12 design. The cul-de -sac shall be located approximately 100 feet to the north of the
13 proposed hammerhead's location (approximately between Lots 4 and 9). The
14 location and design shall be reflected on plans submitted for SPARC review and
15 approval. Typical landscape improvements, i.e., a landscaped "canoe" shall be
16 installed in the cul-de -sac.
17
18 22. The street paved section width shall be 28 feet. Plans submitted for SPARC
19 review and in conjunction with the projects improvement drawings/Final Map
20 shall reflect this dimension.
21
22 23. Sidewalks and street tree planter areas consistent with City Standards shall e
23 provided on both sides of the street Plans submitted for SPARC review and in
24 conjunction with the project's improvement drawings/Final Map shall reflect
25 these improvements.
26
27
'28
NEW BUSINESS:
-29
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
30
31
IL NOISE ORDINANCE; CITY OF PETALUMA (ves).
32
33
Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to replace the existing
34
noise regulations (Section 22 -301) with new noise regulations.
35
36
Senior Planner Smith presented the staff report.
'37
38
The public hearing was opened.
39
40
SPEAKERS:
�,.
'
41
42
Commissioner Feibusch - Address utility repairs, garbage services, etc.; how can we
43
address race track/fairgrounds noise?
a
44
Commissioner Torliatt - Add an appeal process.
-45
Commissioner Rahman - Can City measure noise now? who has jurisdiction at
46
fairgrounds?
9
Planning Commission Minutes - July 9, 1996
1 Senior Planner Smith - State of California has jurisdiction at fairgrounds.
2 Commissioner Read - Some low frequency noises are annoying also;. City should have
3 ability to hire noise consultant on an as- needed basis; Staff should contact City of
4 Mountain View (Shoreline Amphitheater) to get some information; violation fee should be
5 set -up - funding could purchase equipment/consultant.
6 Commissioners Rahman/Read - City should hire consultant on as- needed basis, shouldn't
7 buy equipment that will be outdated quickly.
8 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Clarify "Zone"; include an appeal process; possibly appoint a
9 commission of "noise experts" for dispute resolution (similar to the City's Board of
10 Building Review and Appeals).
11 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Add a statement that this new Ordinance would not
12 supersede CEQA, etc.
13 Commissioner Wick - Reconcile with other documents (Zoning Ordinance, etc.); very
14 concerned that these existing businesses to become legal non - conforming; existing
15 businesses are concerned with the consequences of being legal non - conforming and want
16 assurance that they will not be found to be in violation of the new regulations; reliance on
17 the existing non - conforming chapter of Zoning Ordinance will not be satisfactory to these
18 existing uses, we should develop specific criteria and provisions in this new Ordinance to
19 address "non- conforming" uses.
20 Principal Planner McCann - Discussion regarding existing non - conforming uses; potential
21 for exceptions; agrees that this aspect needs attention.
22 Commissioner Rahman - Cannot jeopardize existing industrial uses.
23 Senior Planner Smith - Noted that retention/protection of existing uses is important,
24 General Plan has wording to protect existing uses.
25 Commissioner Read - Suggested establishing a "right to create noise" provision (similar to
26 right to farm notices).
27 Commissioner Wick - Specify due process; have State Guidelines been incorporated?
28 Mike Healey - 304 Kentucky Street - Glad to see this item being discussed by City; matter
29 of general importance; where will noise be measured - property line? nearest sensitive
30 receptor; consider adding a third time period (midnight to 5AM ?); courts treat non-
31 conforming uses differently - they are not exempt from new regulation like these.
32 Lawrence Laugenbaugh - 225 Kentucky - Has a neighbor who has generated noise and
33 been a nuisance for years - cannot do anything about use because it is pre - existing;
34 proposed noise ordinance is not stringent enough; problems don't occur only during
35 business hours.
36 Senior Planner Smith - Need to find a way to address potential conflict between uses/noise
37 - relationship of uses.
38 Commissioner Rahman - Appeals Committee should be appointed; discuss this proposed
39 Ordinance with City Attorney; enforcement and staffing issues.
40 Senior Planner Smith - Will discuss with City Attorney.
41
42 The public hearing was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 23, 1996.
43
44
10
Planning Commission Minutes - July 9, 1996
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
III. RESTORATION DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE
PETALUMA RIVER WATERSHED; CITY OF PETALUMA.
Consideration of new creek design and management Guidelines that enable
restoration of riparian corridors while maintaining flood control objectives.
Senior Planner Barrett presented the staff report.
SPEAKERS:
Commissioner Read - This is a win/win situation - fabulous; congratulations to all
involved.
Commissioner Torliatt - How would any property owners be affected? property rights,
etc..
Senior Planner Barrett - Ideal for developing properties - demonstration project
implements General Plan Guidelines.
Principal Planner McCann - Provides a "how -to" for creek restoration showing how
habitat, and flood control needs can both be furthered.
Commissioner Torliatt - How was this noticed? property owners want to be involved.
Senior Planner Barrett - All property owners notified along project site (Adobe Creek);
Guidelines will help identify goals/procedures; extensive inter- agency meetings.
Principal Planner McCann - Guidelines advisory; these are not mandatory Zoning
regulations.
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Commendable job; consider ability to apply to man -made
flows?
A motion was made by Commissioner Wick and seconded by Commissioner Feibusch to
recommend to the City Council adoption of the Restoration Design and Management
Guidelines and approval of the Adobe Creek Restoration Plan and Management Program
for implementation as a demonstration project.
Commissioner Read: Yes
Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
Commissioner Thompson: Absent
Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
Commissioner Wick: Yes
Chairperson Rahman: Yes
IV. LIAISON REPORTS. - None.
11
Planning Commission Mnutess - July 9, 1996
1
2
3
4
5
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
IV. PROJECT STATUS:
1. Cross Creek - Will return to Council in August and then back to Planning
Commission for Annexation, PUD Development Plan and Pre - Tentative
Subdivision Map recommendation.
2. Telecommunication Facility Regulations - Urgency Ordinance extended.
3. Joint SPARC/Planning Commission field trip - staff will reschedule.
ADJO : 9:50 PM
MW0709 / pL=70
12