HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/14/1997Planning Commission Minutes - January 14, 1997
1
2
3
4
D
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
27
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
X 32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
CITY OF PETAL UMA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETNG
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY HALL - PETALUMA, CA
January 14, 1997
7:00 PM
Commissioners: Present: Bennett, Feibusch, Maguire, Rahman, vonRaesfeld, Wick *;
Absent: Thompson
Staff: Pamela Tuft. Planning Director
James McCann, Principal Planner
Vincent Smith .ucp. Senior Planner
Chairperson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGI_ INCE.
APPROVAL OF ,MINUTES
printed.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None.
Minutes of November 12, 1997 were approved as
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Bennett - Complaint regarding Noah's
Bagels - very large bagel on top of building!; Commissioner Rahman - Commended staff
on ivy plantings on soundwalls along East Washington and Caulfield Commissioner
Wick Commended City Council and staff regarding opening of Schollenberger Park
and opening of new dog park - very nice additions to City.
CORRESPONDENCE: Copy of Planning Commission Minutes of July 9 and July 23,
1996 regarding Noise Ordinance; Letter from Mike Healy regarding Noise Ordinance;
Letter from Katherine Alvarez regarding Montessori Morning project letter from Melissa
Leclerc regarding Petaluma Assisted Living project.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on agenda.
Planning Commission Minutes - January 14, 1997
2 OLD BUSINESS
3 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
1
5 I. NOISE ORDINANCE; CITY OF PETALUi✓IA (vs).
6
7 Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to establish new Noise
8 Regulations.
9
10 Continued from October 8, November 12 and December 10 (canceled)
11 meetings.
12
13 Senior Planner Smith presented the staff report.
14
15 The public hearing was opened:
16
17 SPEAKERS:
1s
19 Commissioner Bennett - Would like to hear what 60 dBa and 75 dBa sound like: noise
20 levels for Petaluma Blvd. N. or East. Washington.
21 Senior Planner Smith - At edge of US 101 - 7D db; 400 feet from US 101 approx. 60 db.
22 Commissioner Bennett - Petaluma Blvd. North heading toward Payran - estimates?
23 Senior Planner Smith - Would depend on time of day; Kicker's in past at 2AM was 40 -45
24 db.
25 Commissioner Rahman - Any idea of Race Track noise at Fairgrounds?
26 Senior Planner Smith - None.
27 Commissioner Maguire -Can you explain chart attached to staff report?
28 Senior Planner Smith - Chart adopted by State (overlays with different uses) and is part of
29 General Plan.
'0 Commissioner Maguire - Problem with conditionally acceptable - huge range: very
31 undefined categories.
32 Senior Planner Smith - Graph covers existing as well as new development.
33 Commissioner Maguire - Needs to know what automobile noise ordinances exist (vehicle
34 code) - could you summarize tonight?
35 Senior Planner Smith - There are vehicle codes that regulate noise by automobiles - can
36 be incorporated.
37 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Attached excerpt - for information only or to be
38 incorporated?
39 Senior Planner Smith - Information only.
40
11 (Music played at a fairly normal level was measured at approximately 60 -65 db.)
42
43 Wayne Vieler - Petaluma resident - Congratulates Planning Department on new Noise
44 Ordinance Draft - Agreed with General Plan goals of creating quiet neighborhoods; has
45 taken numerous measurements at his establishment (Kodiak Jack's) wants an ordinance
46 that is not left up to discretion - should be very clear in new adopted noise ordinance:
47 readily identifiable major arterials in town already register a regular sound volume of 75-
48 80 db of sound; old noise ordinance is from 1948; State criteria is from 1975 -
49 populations were much less when both documents were created; anywhere within a
50 block area of downtown will register fairly high volumes; 75 db should be a baseline in
51 arterial areas; noise values should be established to different zones (Commercial.
52 Residential, etc.) based on some research with noise meters; reality should be reflected in
Planning Commission Minutes - January 14, 1997
1 base levels; idea of establishing a noise ordinance is commendable - apply correct
2 criteria/baselines.
4 The public hearing was closed.
5
6 Commission Discussion:
7
8 Commissioner Maguire - Length of noise - shouldn't Table I be chanced to 15 minutes or
9 MORE - not LESS?
io Senior Planner Smith - Yes - correct, will change to more.
11 Commissioner Rahman - Questions regarding noises with power tools in home setting.
12 Planning Director Tuft - There are some complaints, not very often: typically 2 -3 times
13 per year, usually associated with a Home Occupation which has outgrown the home.
14 Commissioner Rahman - Rototillers, lawnmowers - aren't they above noise levels?
15 Senior Planner Smith - Yes. this type of noise is sometimes a complaint in the evening or
16 early AM.
17 Commissioner Maguire - Item AIA - add "repeatedly pound "; specify- battery operated
18 tools ?; Item E - mention loading or unloading; Item H - add "or aircraf �'; Item 2. page 2 -
19 add language limiting to 90 days or as approved by public hearing; Item B - measure at
20 receiver's property - include public areas; Exemptions - helipad for hospitals and/or
21 public benefit - does not « to give a blanket exemption (should be looked at on a case -
22 by -case basis).
23 Planning Director Tuft - There have been 2 complaints generated by the Petaluma Valley
24 Hospital Helipad in last 6 -8 years: a new similar use would not automatically_ fall into an
25 exemption.
26 Commissioner Maguire -More restrictive should apply, not less restrictive; specific
27 protected areas - more protection should be built -in (where enforceable) - Table 1 -
28 weekend times should be moved up to 8 - 9 AM instead of 7 AM.
29 Commissioner Bennett - Much of this is just an enforcement document, generally
30 supportive; greatest noise problem in City is traffic; lives next to a sound - still very
31 noisy; targeting business, neighborhoods, or what ?; noise level is enforcement document:
32 more explanation of ambient levels needed; a business that has been in existence for years
33 would now have to apply for an exception - this could create man problems; this is a
34 document designed for single - family subdivision homes; will rail traffic be legislated
35 against in future ?. regarding helipad, no need to grant an exception, would be addressed
36 through conditional use permit process.
37 Commissioner Rahman - Agrees with Commissioner Bennett - worries about
3'8 enforcement - traffic on street at 6PM is too noisy to allow conversation in her home with
39 windows open; traffic noise is biggest factor - cannot be enforced; issue at Fairgrounds -
,40 can nothing be done just because this is State property ?; (this is an unacceptable situation,
41 something wrong with lack of jurisdiction on State property); would like to see City
42 Council say - "let's take on Sacramento ".
43 Commissioner Maguire - City does have some authority over this property. matter of
44 asserting authority; supports Fair, but stock car races are not agriculturally oriented.
45 Commissioner Rahman - Does State have levels for noise for fairgrounds?
46 Planning Director Tuft - Will investigate if State has noise levels for State owned.
47 property such as Fairgrounds.
48 Commissioner Feibusch - Some of these ideas very good; concerns with commercial
49 businesses in existence for a long time; some existing uses may not be able to continue;
0 airports disappear all the time.
-5 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Heavy equipment will probably not be operating at night;
52 Page 4, Line 12 - seems rather subjective - questions regarding due process - needs appeal
5 process.
Planning Commission Minutes - January 14, 1997
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2s
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Planning Director Tuft - Yes, looking at entire ordinance, any subjective decision is
appealable. y
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Timelines should be adjusted - this ordinance seems
simplistic; question raised by Mr. Vieler makes sense - need for a data base seems
reasonable; maybe existing large industrial uses should be noticed of potential for serious
impacts - provide background information.
Commissioner Wick - Why are we looking at this change? Must look at existing problem
- good evolution of ordinance - has become more organized and concise; three upcoming
specific plans with mixed uses - if ambient noise levels are set, we will be headed for
problems in future; adopt these as interim levels for 1 year or 18 months and allow
Council to continue for longer period.
Commissioner Bennett - Supports (generally) Commissioner Wick - would not require
businesses to apply for exceptions.
Planning Director Tuft - Clarification - exception will not be stipulated to all industrial
uses - if there are substantiated complaints, this would be a tool to allow continued
operation.
Commissioner Wick - Different expectations of levels of quiet in different areas.
Commissioner Maguire - Geographical areas need to be treated differently; this should be
more restrictive since this is a nuisance abatement instrument; equity is built -in through
appeal process; would like to discuss hours in Table 1.
Planning Director Tuft - Need to address specific land uses, zones, geographic areas -
central downtown area - Central Petaluma Specific Plan will include discussion of
potential growth of noise; anticipates substantial rewrite of Zoning Ordinance «7th
criteria from Specific Plan being incorporated into Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Rahman - Concerns with integration into Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Director Tuft - This is recognized as an interim ordinance; has recognized rail
grow by proposing as an exemption: regulated by complaints.
Commissioner Bennett - California Cooperative Creamery is not discussed as an
exception; all resolved problems may not be under this resolution.
Planning Director Tuft - Creamery very unique situation - 24 -hour operation surrounded
by residential uses.
Commissioner Wick - Existing businesses do not want to go through this process again -
many businesses predate government regulation; have to allow for redress for legitimate
complaints.
Consensus - AlA - page 1 - Add repeatedly: add loading or unloading; page 2 lines 22 -27
- add successive 30 days with potential for extension; Add - where unique circumstances
exist, discretion of enforcement official: receivers property line; regulation of
automobiles - staff to provide more information; Table 1 - general concern with
timeframes - could be handled by geographic approach - more restrictive times in
residential neighborhoods; Monday through Saturda - 7AM to 6PM noises for in -fill
projects - 8AM Saturday, Sunday and Holidays for large equipment, construction; 6ANI
reasonable in historically heavy industrial areas; do not want to handicap some businesses
(Jerico); Add sentence regarding exemption for documented historic uses.
Commission requested copy of Vehicle Code.
Motion by Commissioner vonRaesfeld and seconded by Commissioner Maguire to
continue this item to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 11, 1997.
Commissioner Maguire: Yes
Commissioner Bennett: Yes
Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
Planning Commission Minutes - January 14, 1997
I Commissioner Rahman: Yes
2 Commissioner Thompson: Absent
3 Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
4 Chairman Wick: Yes
5
6
7
8 NEW BUSINESS
9 PUBLIC HEARING
110
11 II. PETALUMA ASSISTED LIVING; MELISSA LECLERC; 101 ELY BLVD.
12 SOUTH; AP NO. 149- 171 -028.
13
14 Consideration of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of a
15 Conditional Use Permit and Variance to allow development and operation of a 91-
16 suite senior residential care facility in High -Rise Apartment Residence (R -M -H)
17 Zoning District.
18
19 Principal Planner McCann presented the staff report.
20
21 The public hearing was opened.
22
23 SPEAKERS:
24
25 Commissioner Maquire - What is maximum height allowed in this zoning district?
26 (answer - 30 feet); questions regarding parking, loading areas; any specific mitigation for
27 increased storm water runoff?
28 Principal Planner McCann Relatively small parking lot.
29 Garth Brandaw - Project Architect - Will fit in with Valley Orchards; discrepancy with
30 number of beds - should be 92 units with 99 beds.
31 Commissioner Maguire - Any type of exercise facility?
32 Garth Brandaw - Craft room, library - walking will be most popular form of exercise.
33 Commissioner Maguire - Questions regarding deliveries.
34 Garth Brandaw - Twice a,.eek (food service) most common delivery.
3 Commissioner Feibusch - Necessity for two driveways?
36 Garth Brandaw - Additional Fire Department access; two facilities (Valley Orchards) will
37 blend together - no barriers.
.38 Commissioner Rahman - Frontage on Ely - how will this project impact parking for
39 commuter transit on this frontage?
-40 Planning Director Tuft - No restriction on on- street parking (except driveway access).
41 Garth Brandaw - Ken Hogie from LeisureCare - and John Levinson in audience.
42 Nora Laughlin - 296 E1 -- - Several concerns about project - drainage in front of her
43 property is a concern; "fountain" of water from underground utilities already exists;
.44 concerns with only one access to project; surface of Ely is in need of repair now, should
45 be completely repaved after project; appears proposed landscaping will be attractive.
46
47 The public hearing was closed.
48
49 COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
50
5
Planning Commission Minutes - January 14, 1997
1 Commissioner Maguire - Traffic concerns.
2 Principal Planner McCann - Parking exceeds required; pleased with points of access.
3 Planning Director Tuft - No parking is oriented to existing homes that would direct
4 headlights into those homes.
5 Commissioner Feibusch - SPARC - consider neighbors' views and lighting.
6 Commissioner Rahman - Questions regarding roadway degradation.
7 Principal Planner McCann - Will discuss paving with Engineering Department.
8 Commissioner Bennett - Supports project; to SPARC - consider views to existing
9 neighborhood - address privacy, landscaping should be fast - growing.
10 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - SPARC - Gateway -like corner - landscaping should be well
11 done - maybe trellis, etc.; covered entry - design opportunity.
12
13 A motion was made by Commissioner Feibusch and seconded by Commissioner Rahman
14 to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, approve a Variance to the Zoning Ordinance
15 requirement for two off - street loading docks, and to approve a Conditional Use Permit
16 based on the findings and subject to the mitigation measures and conditions listed below-:
17
18 Commissioner Maguire: Yes
19 Commissioner Bennett: Yes
20 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
21 Commissioner Rahman: Yes
22 Commissioner Thompson: Absent
23 Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
24 Chairman Wick: Yes
25
26 Findings for Adoption of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
27
28 1. An Initial Study has been prepared and proper notice provided in accordance with
29 CEQA and local guidelines.
30
31 2. Based upon the Initial Study and any comments received, there is no substantial
32 evidence that the project as mitigated would have a significant effect on the
33 environment.
34
35 3. The project does not have potential to affect wildlife resources, either indBidually
36 or cumulatively, and is exempt from Fish and Game filing fees because the project
37 is situated on an infill site surrounded by urban development with none of the
38 resources defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
39
40 4. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List
41 compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
42
43 5. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
44 considered any and all comments before making a decision on the project.
45
46 6. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public
47 review at the City of Petaluma Planning Department, City Hall, 11 English Street.
48 Petaluma, California.
49
50 Findings for the Variance
51
Planning Commission Minutes - January 14, 1997
1 1. There are exceptional, peculiar or .unusual conditions inherent in the property
2 sufficient to cause hardship in that the configuration of the property and its
3 relationship to two arterial streets are design constraints.
4
5 2. The hardship is not created an act of the owner or by a neighboring violation.
6
7 3. Strict interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicant of
8 privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zoning district;.
9 multi- family residential projects permitted in this district are not required to
ro provide off - street loading docks.
11
12 4. The Variance would not result in a special privilege for the applicant which is not
13 enjoyed by neighboring properties; the adjacent Valley Orchards project only
14 provides one off-street loading dock
15
16 5. The Variance would not result in a substantial detriment to a neighboring
17 property, other properties in the vicinity, or the general public interest. City staff
1'8 has determined that the use would be served adequately with a single loading
19 dock. Providina the two off - street loading docks would be detrimental to the
20 neighborhood as additional paving would be necessary which would detract from
21 the appearance of the project.
22
23 Findings for the Conditional Use Permit
24
25 1. The proposed senior assisted care facility, as conditioned, will conform to the
26 requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance as a conditionally
27 permitted use in the R -M -H zoning district. The project setbacks, height, off - street
28 parking and other development characteristics conform to the minimum standards
29 of the zoning district, with the exception of one off - street loading dock for which
30 a Variance was granted.
31
32 2. The proposed senior assisted living facility, as conditioned. ,gill conform to the
33 intent of the Urban High Land Use Designation and is consistent with the intent,
34 goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan, in that it will contribute to the
.35 City's employment base and range of available housing types.
36
37 3. The proposed senior assisted living facility will not constitute a nuisance or be
38 detrimental to the public welfare of the community. The facility will maintain
39 staffing 24 hours a day to monitor and ensure the safevy of the residents. The
40 operational characteristics of the facility are of low intensitti- in nature and are
41 determined to be compatible with the surrounding residential uses.
42
43 NOTICE: Pursuant to Section 66020 of the California Government Code, the
44 applicant/developer has the statutory right to protest development fees. dedication and
45 reservation requirements, and other executions included in this project approval as
46 provided in the Special Development Fees booklet.
47
48 Mitigation Measures
49
50 1. Grading and improvement plans shall include measures to mitigate soil erosion as
51 established in Title 17 of the Petaluma Municipal Code.
7
Planning Commission Minutes - January 14, 1997
2
2.
The project shall contribute a proportionate fee for the incremental increase in
3
storm water runoff generated as established in the City's Municipal Code.
4
5
3.
Watering of the site to reduce airborne dust levels shall be implemented if dust
6
generated during the grading process threatens to travel off -site due to wind
7
currents.
8
9
4.
All motor - powered equipment shall be properly equipped with systems to reduce
10
emissions. Haul trucks cam-ina dirt on or off -site shall be covered with tarps.
y
11
12
5.
Permanent signs shall be installed at drop inlets to the public storm drain system
13
which prohibit the deposit of hazardous materials into the system.
14
15
6.
Construction hours shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00
16
p.m., Monday through Friday; 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday; _none on
17
Sunday and holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma.
18
19
7.
The vehicles and/or equipment used for the project shall be required to comply
20
with all vehicle codes and City Performance Standards pertaining to noise. as
21
applicable, including the use of mufflers to reduce the noise from the construction
22
equipment.
23
24
8.
All exterior light fixtures shall be shown on plans subject to SPARC review and
25
approval prior to issuance of a building permit. All lights attached to the exterior
26
of buildings shall provide a soft wash of light against walls. All lights shall
27
conform to City Performance Standards (e.g. no direct glare, no poles in excess of
)8
20 feet high, etc.).
29
30
9.
The project shall be subject to the City's Special Development Fees. including
31
sewer connection, water connection, community facilities impact, storm drainage
32
impact, traffic mitigation and school facilities (paid directly to the School
33
District). Said fees shall be paid at the time and in the manner prescribed in the
34
City's current Special Development Fees handout. For purposes of determining
35
fee applicability and calculations, the project shall be considered to be non -
36
residential.
37
38
10.
The architectural design of the building and the landscaping are subject to SPARC
39
review and approval.
40
41
11.
In the event that archaeological/historical remains are encountered during grading.
42
work shall be halted temporarily and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted
43
to evaluate the artifacts and to recommend further action. The identified Native
44
American community shall also be notified and consulted in the event any
45
archaeological remains are identified. If human remains are found, the CountV
46
Coroner shall be notified immediately.
47
48
Conditions of Approval
49
50
1.
All requirements of the Planning Department shall be complied with, including:
8
Planning Commission Minutes - January 14, 1997
1
2
a.
The project's site plan, landscape plan and building architecture shall be
3
reviewed and approved by SPARC prior to issuance of a building permit.
4
Complete site and landscape plans and exterior elevations shall be
5
submitted at the time of application for a building permit and shall
6
incorporate any and all conditions /mitigations imposed as conditions of
7
approval.
8
9
b.
The parking lot and landscaped areas shall conform to the Parking Design
to
Standards of the City of Petaluma. Plans prepared for SPARC review shall
1 t
be prepared consistent with these standards.
12
13
C.
Plans submitted for the issuance of a building permit shall include a
14
certification by an acoustical engineer to ensure that they are in
15
compliance with City noise standards.
16
17
d.
An access easement agreement shall be recorded by the applicant prior to
is
issuance of a building permit to allow the on -site walkway to connect to
19
the adjacent property. Proof of the recordation shall be submitted to
20
Planning Department staff.
21
22
e.
This use permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review at
23
any time due to complaints regarding lack of compliance with conditions
24
of approval, traffic congestion, noise generation, or other adverse
25
operating characteristics. At such time, the Commission may revoke the
26
use permit or addmodiffi7 conditions of approval.
27
28 2.
All
requirements of the City Engineering Department shall be complied with.
29
including:
30
31
a.
Any overhead utilities along the frontage or traversing the site shall be
32
placed underground.
33
34
b.
Lot to lot surface drainage shall not be allowed.
35
36
C.
Any broken or displaced sidewalks along the frontage shall be removed
37
and replaced.
38
39
d.
Street lights shall be installed along the frontage if required by spacing
40
criteria.
41
42 3.
All
requirements of the Police Department shall be complied with. including:
y
43
44
a.
Vandal resistant lighting shall be used in the walkway areas.
45
46
b.
Motion detector lighting shall be used at the rear of each --round -level
y
47
apartment.
48
49 4.
All
requirements of the Public Works Department shall be complied with,
50
including:
51
i
Planning Commission Minutes - January 14, 1997
1
a.
The plans submitted for building permit shall show the proposed location
2
of the irrigation meters and backflow devices in the planter area fronting
3
Ely Boulevard South.
4
5
b.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the
6
maximum water flow demands and proposed water mete sizes for Water
7
Department review and verification.
8
9 5.
All requirements of the Fire Marshal's office shall be complied with, including:
10
11
a.
One fire extinguisher, 2AlOBC type, shall be provided for each 3,000
12
square feet of floor space, and/or a maximum travel distance of 75 feet.
13
14
b.
One 40BC rated dry chemical type extinguisher shall be provided in the
15
kitchen area.
16
17
C.
The address shall be posted at or near the main entry door. The numbers
18
shall be a minimum of 4 inches tall with a contrasting background.
19
20
d.
A KNOX box on the building shall be provided for Fire Department
21
access. An application for the box can be obtained from the Fire Marshal's
22
office. The box location is subject to the approval of the Fire Marshal.
23
24
e.
All curtains, drapes, hangings and other decorative material shall be flame
25
retardant or treated with an approved fire retardant chemical by a licensed
26
State Fire Marshal Applicator.
27
28
f.
The building(s) shall be protected by an automatic fire extinguishing
29
system as required by the Uniform Buifding Code.
30
31
g.
A minimum of two (2) sets of fire sprinkler plans and calculations shall be
32
provided to the Fire Marshal's office for approval and issuance of permit
33
prior to installation of system.
34
35
h.
An exit sign shall be provided over all required exit doors.
36
37
i.
Emergency exit lighting shall be provided at or near all exits and as
38
designated by the Fire Marshal's office.
39
40
j.
All emergency exit lighting shall be provided at or near all exits and as
41
designated by the Fire Marshal's office.
42
43
k.
Panic hardware shall be provided on all exit doors.
44
45
1.
Fire hydrants shall be spaced at a maximum of 300 feet apart. Location
46
and type of fire hydrants are to be approved by the Fire Marshal's office.
47
48
m.
All required fire lanes, in which no parking is allowed, shall be designated
49
by painting curbs red. Where no curbs exist, signs approved by the Fire
50
Marshal shall be installed.
ID
Planning Commission Minutes - January 14, 1997
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.9
10
I
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 °5
46
47
48
49
n. A fire alarm system shall be provided for all residential buildings 3 or
more stories in height or containing 16 or more dwelling units in
accordance with the Uniform Fire Code.
o. A permit is required for the alarm system prior to installation.
P. Contractor shall provide the Fire Marshal's office with two (2) sets of
plans for the underground fire service main for permit approval prior to
commencement of work.
q. All roofing material shall be rated class "B" or better, treated in
accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 32.7 and City of
Petaluma Ordinance 1744.
6. All requirements of the Building Division shall be complied with, including:
a. Grading must be certified when completed to indicate compliance with
approved plans and will be required for occupancy.
b. Pad elevations shall be certified before building slab on grade is poured.
C. Soils with expansion index greater than 20 require special design
foundation per Uniform Building Code 1803.2.
d. Mixed occupancy separation as described I Chapter 3 of the 1994 UBC
must be followed.
e. All roofing shall be "B" rated or better per Ordinance No. 1744/1988.
f Site drainage and grading topography shall be shown on the plan
submitted for building permit.
g. All utilities shall be shown on the site plan submitted with plans for
building permit.
h. The building permit plans shall be signed by a responsible party.
i. A soils report shall be submitted to verift foundation design.
j. The group occupancy, type of construction and square footage shall be
indicated on the plans submitted for building permit.
k. Plans must show compliance to 1994 UBC, UPC. UMC, and 1993 NEC.
Plans must also show compliance to current Title 24 Energy Code.
1. Structural calculations shall be provided for all non - conventional design
items.
Planning Commission Minutes - January 14, 1997
1 7. The applicants /developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or
2 any of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
3 action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or
4 employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of the project when
5 such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable
6 State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the
7 applicants /developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall
8 coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the
9 City from participating in a defense of any claim, action. or proceeding if the City
10 bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good
11 faith.
12
13
14 III. MONTESSORI MORNINGS; MICHAEL Ah1D GRACE GLEASON; 125
15 SARATOGA COURT; AP NO. 149 - 260 -035.
16
17 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow operation of a Large Family
18 Day Care Home for up to 14 children between 8:00 AM and Noon, Monday
19 through Friday.
20
21 Principal Planner McCann presented the staff report.
22
23 The public hearing was opened.
24
25 SPEAKERS:
26
27 Commissioner Feibusch - Questions regarding hours - (8:00 AM - Noon).
28 Principal Planner McCann - If hours expanded. Use Permit Amendment would be
29 required.
30 Michael Gleason - Applicant - Staff analysis thorough and appropriate; has
31 obtained a day care license from State; State maximum of 8 children is at any one
32 time of day: 3 -6 year olds do not benefit from longer days. all traffic would be
33 before noon; proposes staggered pick -up and drop- off; traffic safety utmost
34 concern.
35 Butch Smith - 113 Saratoga Court - Subdivision is a PUD; no provisions for
36 Conditional Use Permits; staff report indicates project is in an R -1 district, not
37 PUD; bought his particular lot because it is in a cul -de -sac; traffic concerns,
38 children coming back from pre - school during hours of operation.
39 Principal Planner McCann - CC &R's indicate lots to be used for residential uses;
40 Zoning Ordinance dictates accessory uses.
41 Planning Director Tuft - Both sections (CC &R's. PUD Standards and Zoning
42 Ordinance) preempted by State.
43 Butch Smith - Main question is traffic.
44 Diane Constable -Davis - 109 Saratoga Court - Did not expect that there would be
45 traffic in this cul -de -sac; wrong kind of street for this much traffic; does not know
46 if applicants are living in this home; children are used to playing in this cul -de-
47 sac.
48
49 The public hearing was closed.
50
51 Commission discussion
52
12
Planning Commission Minutes - January 14, 1997
1 Commissioner Maguire - There would be no traffic in a "perfect" world; lives near
2 a daycare facility, not significant traffic impact.
3 Commissioner Wick - dangerous precedent to deny this use because of location on
4 a cul -de -sac.
5 Commissioner Maguire - Appropriate use at this site.
6 Commissioner Rahman - If conditions are not followed, Planning Commission
7 will recall for review.
8 Commissioner Bennett - If problems occur, one -year review is a condition;
9 minimiza of disruption to neighborhood.
10 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - In support of this project.
11
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Maguire and seconded by Commissioner Rahman
13 - to find the project exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 and
14 to approve the Conditional Use Permit based on the findings and subject to the conditions
15 listed below:
16
17 Commissioner Maguire: Yes
18 Commissioner Bennett: Yes
19 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
20 Commissioner Rahman: Yes
21 Commissioner Thompson: Absent
22 Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
'23 Chairman Wick: Yes
24
25 Findings for Conditional Use Permit
26
27 1. The proposed Large Family Day Care Home. as conditioned, will conform to the
28 requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance as a conditionally
29 permitted use in an R -1 district. The proposal conforms to the requirements for
30 Large Family Day Care Homes under Section 21 -500.
31
32 2. The proposed Large Family Day Care Home, as conditioned, is consistent with
33 the intent, goals and policies of the Petaluma General Plan.
34
35 3. The proposed Large Family Day Care Home, as conditioned, will not constitute a
36 nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community because it will
i7 be conducted in compliance with the requirements for Large Family Day Care
38 Homes under Zoning Ordinance Section 21 -500, the drop -off and pick -up times
39 will be staggered to avoid an adverse traffic impact on the neighborhood, and it
40 will add to the public welfare of the community by providing a safe environment
41 for children. If complaints arise regarding lack of compliance with conditions of
42 approval, traffic congestion, noise or odor generation or any other adverse
43 operating characteristics. At such time, the Planning Director or Planning
44 Commission may revoke the use permit or add/modify conditions of approval.
45
46 4. The project is categorically exempt under CEQA Section 15303, Conversion of
47 Small Structures.
'48
49 Conditions of Approval
50
51 1. Approval is granted to allow operation of a large family daycare facility as
52 described in the applicant's narrative dated 10/17/96.
13
Planning Commission Minutes - January 14. 1997
2 2. The hours of operation shall be 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Any expansion of the use
3 or significant changes in operation will require an amendment to the use permit.
4
5 3. All conditions set forth in Section 21 -500 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance
6 including, but not limited to the following, shall be complied with:
8
a.
The proposed daycare home shall comply with applicable Building Codes,
9
Fire Code standards adopted by the Fire Marshal, and with Social Service
10
Department licensing requirements (California Administrative Code, Title
11
22, Division 2).
12
b.
Drop -off and pick -up of children at the proposed daycare home shall be
13
staggered to avoid burdening the neighborhood with excessive traffic.
14
C.
Noise generated from the proposed daycare home shall not exceed
15
established standards and policies as set forth in the General Plan, i.e. not
16
to exceed Ldn 60 as measured outside on neighboring property.
17
d.
The use permit for large family daycare shall be reviewed after one year
18
by the Director to identify and achieve mitigation of any adverse
19
conditions related to the daycare activities' conformance to the Zoning
20
Ordinance regulations. The Director may mitigate problems related to
21
noise, traffic. parking. and code violations by imposing new conditions.
22
such as, but not limited to, limiting hours of operation. requiring
23
installation of solid fencing. subsequent or periodic review, etc. at her
24
discretion. The Director shall give notice of this review to owners and
25
residents of property immediately adjacent to the large family daycare to
26
allow at least ten days for comment.
27
e.
The facility shall be operated in such a manner so as not to adversely
28
affect adjoining residences.
29
30 4.
The
facility shall conform to Sections 3052.3 and 310.15 of the 1994 California
31
Building Code.
32
33 5.
All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met including:
34
35
a.
Provide one fire extinguisher, 2AIOBC type, for each 3,000 square feet of
36
floor space, and /or a maximum travel distance of 75 feet.
37
b.
Post address at or near main entry door - minimum four (4) inch letters on
38
contrasting background.
39
C.
Use of extension cords in lieu of permanent wiring is prohibited.
40
d.
This business will require an annual fire department permit for a large
41
family daycare. The permit fee of $30.00 is due and payable prior to
42
commencement of use.
43
e.
Locking devices on exit doors shall conform to the Building Code. Only
44
one lock or latch requiring one motion/operation to open/unlock is
45
required. No double -keyed deadbolts are permitted on exit doors.
46
f.
Smoke detectors in all sleeping rooms and common hallways shall be
47
provided. Detectors shall be hardwired with battery backup. Electrical
48
circuits supplying detectors shall be separate dedicated lines with no other
49
devices on the circuits.
50
g.
An approved fire alarm system shall be provided prior to commencement
51
of use.
52
14
Planning Commission Minutes - January 14, 1997
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1'0
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
t
32
`33
34
35
.36
37
3s
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
'48
49
50
51
52
6. 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.
7. This use permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review at any
time due to complaints regarding lack of compliance tivith conditions of approval,
traffic congestion, noise generation, or other adverse operating characteristics.
At such time. the Commission may revoke the use permit or add/modifi- conditions
of approval.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
IV. ADOPTION OF MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 1997.
The proposed Planning Commission Schedule for 1997 was adopted by consensus.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATES - 1997
January
14.28
February
11.25
March
11.25
April
8, 22
May
13. 27
June
10.24
Julv
8. 22
August
12. 2 6
September
9, 23
October
14.28
November
12, Holiday
December
9, Holiday
V. STATUS REPORT:
1. Baker Street Bar and Grill (Appeal) - Appeal by neighbors denied by
Council.
2. Tuxhorn Estates - Approved by Council.
�. Central Petaluma Specific Plan - Interviews of consultants held by
Committee, recommendation to be forwarded to City Council.
4. Cross Creek - Partially through SPARC
S. Westview Estates - Through SPARC, going forward to Final Map and
Improvement Plan preparation.
15
Planning Commission Minutes - January 14, 1997
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
VI. LIAISON REPORTS:
Tree Advisory Committee - Commissioner Feibusch - Tree planting on Washington
Street - waiting for bid - no volunteer labor needed.
SPARC - Commissioner Bennett - McNear Landing well accepted; Cross Creek.
Planning Director Tuft to talk to Parks and Recreation Director Carr regarding reader
board at Community Center.
Interested in attending APA Conference in San Diego - Commissioners Rahman, Bennett,
Wick, and Feibusch.
ADJOURNMENT: 10:30 PM
min0114 / pian75
m