HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/24/1993M
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING August 24, 1993
CITY COUNCIL'CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M..
CITY HALL PETALUMA,, CA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
ROLL CALL: Bennett *, Parkerson, Rahman, Shea, Thompson, Torliatt, vonRaesfeld_
STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
Jim McCann, Principal'Planner
Dede Dolan, Assistant Planner
* Chairman
MINUTES OF August 10, 1993 were approved as printed.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S;.REPORT: None.
COMMI'SSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Parkerson in uir.ed about date for a joint
Planning Commission /SPARC /City Council meeting tentatively scheduled for
September); . Commissioner Bennett received :a letter expressing concern regarding the new
Sonoma Joe's sign'- expressed concerns with proliferation of banners, balloons, "junk "being
generated - directed staff to discuss with owner /operators that signage will be ; a big factor
in any future reviews; Planning Director Tuft indicated she would discuss Commission
concerns with operator.
CORRESPONDENCE; Planning Commission /SPARC Address /Telephone Lists; August
20 General Report; Letter regarding Tire Source; 7 letters regarding Step-By -Step
DayCare (Dianna Gill); Letter from Kaufman and Broad regarding California Countryside
II; Memo from staff regarding clarification of PUD Findings for California 'Countryside II
project; Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
1
IRA
1 OLD BUSINESS:
2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
t 3
4 I. HOLMBERG ROOFING BUSINESS, OPEN STORAGE OF ROOFING
5 MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT, 16 CEDAR GROVE PARK, AP NO. 006-051-67.
6
7 Continued Public Hearing
8
9 John Chaney - 55 Rocca - this has been on -going since February; how many more delays
i 10 will be allowed? Holmberg's permit needs to be revoked and needs to go to City Council as
11 soon as ,possible.
Commissioner Rahman - Didn't Mr. Holmberg remove some of the trailers?
Planning Director Tuft - Staff requested Mr. Holmberg to remove containers off of
Sonoma County Water Agency property.
Raynor We st - 51 Rocca - Containers are not the only thins on the site - also plywood, car
bodies,', etc..; there is noise of motors, trucks and equipment starting up on Sunday
mornings.
Commissioner Rahm - No matter what happens at Planning Commission level, it sounds
like one side or the other will appeal to Council.
20 Commissioner Parkerson - We need to hear from the applicant before making a decision.
I' 21 Commissioner Bennett - Commission's job is to work out details before this item reaches
! 22 City Council.
23
24 This item was continued to the September 28, 1993 meeting by request of the
25 applicant.
Z6
7
_8 II. KAUFMAN AND BROAD, SONOMA GLEN V, (aka CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTRYSIDE II), SONOMA MOUNTAIN PARKWAY BETWEEN ELY ROAD
30 AND MARIA DRIVE, AP NO. 137- 060 -76 (portion), FILE NO. TSM93004,
31 REZ93005).
32
33 Request for approval of a Rezoning from PCD (Planned Community District) to
34 PUD (Planned Unit District) and request for approval of a PUD Plan and Tentative
35 Map to subdivide an 18 + /- acre parcel into 82 single - family lots. The following
36 actions are required:
37
38 1. Recommend that the City Council find that the previously certified EIR
39 adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with
40 this project.
41 2. Recommend that the City Council approve the Rezoning of the 18 + /- acre
42 parcel.
43 3`. Recommend that the City Council conditionally approve the PUD Plan.
44 4. Recommend that the City Council conditionally approve the Tentative Map.
45
46 (Public hearing continued from the Planning Commission meeting of July 27, 1993.)
47
48 Continued Public Hearing:
49
0 SPEAKERS:
1
2 Assistant Planner Dede Dolan presented the staff report.
3 Commission questions included pedestrian circulation along the creek; density along
54 Urban Limit Line; is applicant now proposing that all garage doors have windows? (Yes,
2
but subject to _ SPARC review); pedestrian accessibility to bus stops; locations of
soundwalls, pedestrian connections with adjoining developments.
Gregory I Williams - Kaufman and Broad -'described additional. diversity' of architecture
after SPARC review; 26 distinct elevations; des gnedl for first -time, homebuyer; hoped all
concerns had been ade uately addressed.
Mike Woodlev = Kaufman and Broad (.VP, Architecture) described the increased
architectural diversity, new elevations, increased number of detached garages, porches on
all elevations, windows on all garage doors with different window shapes, more intense
color schemes, three different roof colors.
Doyle Heaton - Property owner (Kaufman and Broad. has option to purchase) worked with
staff extensively on design; homes wll'be in the $21' °0;000 - $240,000 price range; project is
important for diversity in housing choices in Petaluma:
. Commission Comments - SPARC has seen project three times; have succeeded
quite well in terms of supplying diversity of style /streetscape project has advanced
considerably since first submittal'; . have _ orches been made - bigger (yes); roof
colors/ 'materials are diverse; maintenance of soundwall; architecture has. gone in the, right
direction? ;plant materials need to be coordinated with adjacent project; fewer or no 2 -story
units should be allowed along Sonoma Mountain Parkway; architectural details at rear
elevations need to be addressed; soundwalls will not - mitigate noise in. 2 -story homes;
disclosure by developer needs to be made regarding possibility of noise if roadways expand;
pedestrian access: is needed at private lane . to connect with adjoining (Corona
Crescent/Corona Ranch) development.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion.was made by Commissioner Parkerson. and ,seconded by Commissioner Rahman
-to recommend that the City Council find the previously certified EIR adequately addresses
the environmental impacts of the proposed project,.'and to recommend.approval of the
Rezoning to PUD and the PUD Development Plan based on the amended findings and
subject to the, amended conditions listed below:
COMMISSIONER SHEA: * Yes
COMMISSIONERPARKERSON Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COM'MISSIONER'THOMPSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER'TORLIATT: Yes
COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes
Rezoning and PUD Findings:
1. The development plan as conditioned results in a. more desirable use of the land and
a better . physical environment than would be Possible under. any single zoning
district by , allowing the construction of smaller-, single family units with substantial
areas of landscaping "along the creek and' Sonoma Mountain Parkway..
2. The plan for the proposed development, as conditioned, presents a unified and
organized arrangement of buildings which are. appropriate in relation to, nearby
properties and the PUD plan will be reviewed. by SPARC to insure compatibility.
3. The development of the Sonoma Glen V property in the manner .proposed by the
applicant, and as conditioned b the City, will 'not be detrimental to the public
welfare, will be in the best interest of the City, and will be in keeping with the
3
W
1
general intent and spirit of the Corona Ely Specific Plan, the Zoning Regulations
2
and the General Plan of the City of Petaluma.
3'
4
4.
iThe ' circulation pattern of the proposed PUD has been reviewed in the context of
5
the development of the adjacent Colabianchi, Liberty Farms and remaining Sonoma
6
!Glen Properties,. and has been designed to be compatible with the adjacent
7
"circulation patterns. Cumulative traffic impacts from the development of the
8
Corona /Ely area have been addressed and. mitigated through the implementation of
9
the Corona /Ely Specific Plan.
10
11
5.
The proposed project has complied with the requirements of CEQA .pursuant to
(!02
'Section 15182 of the Guidelines, through preparation and certification of the EIR
, for the Corona /Ely Specific Plan on May 1st, 1989- (Resolution No. 89 -123), which
addressed the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of
the Sonoma Glen V parcel, and no further environmental analysis is necessary.
7
6.
Allowing the sidewalk on the northwest side of - "Street X to be constructed within
`the Corona Creek flood corridor will not be inconsistent with the purpose of the
flood control corridor but will function as an attractive design addition to the
20
neighborhood. The purposed of the corridor to mitigate the loss of open space and
21
mitigate the biological impacts of the Corona Ely Specific Plan will be insured
22
through the careful examination by SPARC of the landscaping plan proposed for
23
this area.
24
25
7.
Allowing a reduction in the width of the corridor on the northwest side of the creek
26
is not inconsistent with the policies and' mitigation measures adopted with the
27
Corona Ely Specific Plan because the conditions of project approval insure that the
.28
balance of the creek will be maintained on the southeast side of the creek.
29
30
8.
The natural and scenic qualities of the site will be protected through *the improvement,
31
dedication and preservation of the Corona Creek corridor in conformance with the
32
Corona /Ely Specific Plan. The development plan provides for adequate public open
33
space along .the creek .and adequate private open space in the individual front and rear
34
yards. The scenic qualities of the site will be further protected ,through conditions of
35
project approval which require that opportunities for views of the creek and the Sonoma
36
Mountains are provided through the trees and over the single -story homes.
37
38
PUD Conditions:
39
40
1.
As required by the adopted Corona /Ely Specific Plan Mitigation Measures, the
41
public. right -of -way landscaping shall be maintained b an "LAD" (Landscape
42
Assessment District). The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with
43
establishing an LAD (or joining an existing LAD). The owner shall enter into an
44
agreement (to be recorded with the Final Map) with the City which authorizes the
45
establishment of the LAD. The LAD will include the privacy wall, landscaping,
46
irrigation and sidewalks within the public right -of -way along Sonoma Mountain
47
Parkway and Ely Road, the landscaping proposed - at the entrance. to Street A, and
48
the landscape area along the Corona Creek, and all, the street trees within the
49
subdivision. The LAD will not include other landscaping within the street tree
50
planter strips or the irrigation for the planter strip. The LAD landscaping and
51
irrigation along Sonoma Mountain Parkway, will be inspected and considered for
52
=
acceptance by the LAD one year after installation. During the first year after
53
installation and inspection /approval by the City maintenance of the landscaping in
54
the LAD shall be the responsibility of the developer.
4
22
2. The PUD plan shall be modified to vary the front yard setbacks and offsets between
neighboring homes as much as' possible. subject to City staff review and approval
without eliminating driveway parking or reducing rearyard areas more than
specified in the PUD guidelines.
3. The improvements• for the creek area, including the sidewalk, landscaping and
irrigation -plans shall be included in the Public Improvement Plans submitted for the
project.
4. The final landscaping plans must be. amended prior to consideration. by SPARC to
include the following:
a) Details on the location, size, spacing and species of plants to be installed,
b) Landscaping within the parking island required b� the Engineering
Department to be added - tolthe T Court" subject to review and approval by
Planning and Engineering staff.
C) Planting in the 5 foot strips within the right -of -way on both sides .,of the
streets between the curb and the sidewalk with an emphasis on creating a
canopy over- the street, and clustering trees to provide views of the Sonoma
Mountains.
d) Details on street lighting, any neighborhood signage, and mailbox details
5. The PUD Plan will be subject to review by SPARC prior to consideration of the
Final Map by the City Council with emphasis on the following:
a)
Insuring that a balanced mix of model types is provided throughout the
subdivision.
b)
Provision of roof and siding materials and colors, architectural details which
are distinctly different than those used in the California Countryside
- Subdivision.
c)
Provision of sidewalk and driveway paving materials and /or colors which will
distinguish the neighborhood.
d)
Provision of street trees, shrubs and ground covers of different textures and
colors than have been used in the California Countryside subdivision.
e)
Provision of a consistent, attractive master fencing plan which will govern the
installation of fencing throughout the PUD.
f)
Providing, a attractive Ely. Road frontage, possibly using an open fence with
vines (" living fence "), witliout`blocking, views of the Sonoma Mountains.
- frontage
..
g)
Insuring that homes with - along Sonoma Parkway and Ely Road
present front elevation details to both roads.
h)
Reducing the visual . impact of 'the soundwall by berming against it and
providing a. dense landscaping screen.
i)
Siting landscaping sod's to preserve selected views of the Sonoma Mountains.
j)
Siting homes and fences to maximize views of the Sonoma Mountains;
special attention should be.paid to the�or' ation of homes which will have
direct views of the mountains.
k)
Siting -'homes, and living space to maximize orientation toward. the creek,
possibly increasing the size of the front porches of homes facing the creek.
1)
Provision of convenient, safe and , 'attractive pedestrian and bicycle
circulation.
m) '
Provision. of special, more intensive landscape treatments at the Maria
Drive/Sonoma Mountain 'Parkway entrance to create greater' visual. interest
5
.
t
! r r k•�t,� t {!-S•d El � .. �'.;
d `'''`''''
d
1
'
and identification in compliance with the Sonoma Mountain Parkway Design
2
Guidelines.
3
n) Insuring that landscaping along Corona Creek utilizes native species typical
4
to the riparian and upland environments and conveys a natural appearance.
5
o) Insuring that the treatment of the bridge, is consistent with the Corona /Ely
6
Specific Plan Policies which indicate that creek crossings should be designed
7
to span the creeks using, bridges, as opposed to culverts, in order to
8
emphasize the•stream channels as important community design elements. If
9
'culverts must be used, rectangular "box" or "bridge" culverts shall be
_a
10
employed rather than conventional arched or rounded culverts.
11
p) Reducing the dominance of the front entry garage door on Plan 1.
A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner
vonRaesfeld" to approve the Tentative Subdivision Map based on the findings and subject
to the amended conditions listed below:
7
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes
COMMISSIONER. PARKERSON Yes
COMN 1SSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
20
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
:j
21
CHAIRMAN BENNETT: Yes
22
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
23
COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes
24
J
1
25
Tentative Map Findings:
i
26
" with
27
1. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is in general conformity
the provisions of General Plan designation for the area.
29
30
2. SPARC review of the PUD plan to insure compliance with the Corona /Ely Specific
31
Plan and the conditions listed will sufficiently address the need for quality design on
32
the site.
33
34
3. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map as conditioned is in. general conformity
35
with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
36
37
4. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map as conditioned is in. general conformity
1
38
with the Subdivision Ordinance.
39
40
_5. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map as conditioned. complies with the policies
41
of the Corona /Ely Specific Plan and addresses the relevant mitigation measures
i
42
identified in the Environmental Impact Report.
43
44
6. The proposed project has complied with the requirements of -CEQA pursuant to
45
Section 15182 of the Guidelines, through preparation and certification of the EIR
46
for the Corona /Ely Specific Plan on May 1st, 1989 (Resolution No. 89 -123), which
47
addressed the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of
48
the Sonoma Glen V parcel, and no further environmental analysis is necessary.
49
f
0
Tentatie Map: Conditions
-
_
1
�
"
2
1. The applicant /developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any
3
of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action,
54
or proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or
23
ns
24
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the tentative/p4rcel
map such claim or action ion is brought. Within the time period provided -for in
Section, 66499.37. 'the City shall promptly notify the applicant
/developer of any
such claim, - action,, or proceeding. The - Ci coordinate fully 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.
Planning Department Conditions:
2. The following Department shall be conditions of
., conditions of the Planning Depa
Tentative approval:
a. The Tentative Subdivision Map shall be - amended and resubmitted prior to
u
review
by SPARC to show the location of the 100 year Flood Plain as
reflected, on the City's .Zoning Map and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Map.
b. The applicant shall be responsible for securing a Letter -of. Map Revision
(LOMB) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) so that
the City's, Flood Maps, and the'Zoning Maps will accurately reflect the
existing Corona bieek' Channel improvements, completed With the
Corona/Ely public improvements. This may be done in, conjunction with the
other properties along Corona Creek affected by the change to the flood
channel. The applicant shall make substantial progress toward obtaining the
LOMR prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy- or homes along
the creek.
c. The project ill be subject - .to the following development fees! Sewer and
wi
Water Connection, Community, Facilities, Storm Drain Impact, Park and
Recreation Land Improvement, School Facilities, and Traffic Mitigation fees.
.d. An absolute - mini'muni distance of 70' will be permitted from the center line
of *the creek to the back of the curb with the understanding that a balance of
the creek corridor is provided along ihe.opposite bank.
e. Anzaverage rniftimurn distance of 30 shall be maintained from the top of the
bank to the sidewalk path. This 'minimum distance may be- 'red I uced in areas
to allow meandering of the -sidewalk and provide views of and access points
to creek channel subject to approval by SPARC.
A notice similar to an agricultural easement shall be recorded with the Final
Map informing buyers of ongoing going agricultural uses on adjacent. lots which
may impact their property. The 'Wording of this notice subject to
approval by the city staff.
g. - The applicant shall be responsible for submitting, to the City, an agreement
ment
with the adjacent property owner which recognizes that the balance of the
required creek flood" control/6pp-n 'space corridor, not 'provided on the
Sonoma Glen V property, will be provided, on the adjacent, property. This
agreement shall ' be• subject to rOView. and approval 'by -City staff prior to
consideration of the Final Map by- the City Council.
h. The applicant shall be-kespolisiblefor submitting to the City an agreement, in
conformance with, engineering condition No. 3b., with the „adjacent property
owner which spe,cifiesAe of how and when the bridge across Corona
Creek is to be constructed.
1. The Tentative Map shalt be modified if necessary to respond to the PUD
conditions of approval' and the revised Tentative Map submitted for review
by SPARC prior to consideration of the," Final Map by the City. Council.
F]
1
;fix i f'�'QtiK t'ti y'ja �'{ hd4
1
W.,
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
10
11
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
z7
8
?9
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
[53 2
54
1.
j•
I
The applicant shall be responsible for insuring the timely installation of the
Burgundy Court improvements pursuant to the Corona Ely Development
Agreement
A notice advising all future owners of homes which abut Sonoma Mountain
Parkway that they abut an arterial road and may be subjected to undesirable
noise levels shall be recorded with the Final Map. The wording of this notice
shall be subject to approval by City staff.
The private roadway shall be reconfigured as a public right -of -way and shall be
extended to provide a pedestrian connection to the driveway extended from
Burgundy Court.
3. The following conditions from the Director of Engineering shall be conditions of
( Tentative Map approval:
a. If the construction of Burgundy Court from Ely Road to "A" Street is not
complete; this development shall complete that portion of Burgundy Court
improvements, prior to issuing any Certificates of Occupancy for the Sonoma
Glen V project.
b. The bridge across Corona Creek for the future road to remainder lands shall
be designed and approved with the improvement plans for this development.
The construction costs of the bridge shall be bonded for at Final Map
approval for the Sonoma Glen V project.
c. The Final "Map shall show flood inundation areas per the Flood Insurance
Rate Map.
. If the Sonoma. Glen Phase 4 Final Map is recorded prior to the Final Map
for this project, "'the boundary land and remainder land shall reflect the
Sonoma Glen Phase 4 Final Map.
e. The existing traffic signal at the intersection of "Street A" and Sonoma
Mountain Parkway ,shall be modified as shown on the Sonoma Mountain
l Parkway Signal Improvement Plans. This shall be shown on the
1 Improvement Plans for the project and shall be subject to review and
approval by the Director of Engineering.
f. The driveway for Lot 82 shall be located on the improvement Mans and
building permit plans at the northem -most corner of the.lot to insure the
maximum separation between the driveway and the intersection subject to
approval by the Engineering Director.
g. A parking island shall be shown on the public improvement plans and
installed in "B Court" subject to approval by the Engineering Director.
h. A one (1') foot non- access easement shall be shown on the Final Map along
dots on Sonoma Mountain Parkway and Ely Roads.
. Private drive "A" shall only extend 20 feet beyond the last driveway for Lot 64
or 65.
J_ Private drive "A" shall be private property with access easements, not a
separate parcel.
k., Private drive "A" surface pavement shall be constructed with concrete.
1. Driveway maintenance agreements for all.shared driveways shall be recorded
with the Final Map. subject to review and approval by Engineering Staff prior
to consideration of the Final Map by the City Council.
M. The sanitary sewer and water main for private drive "A" shall be City
maintained and contained within the proper public easements.
.n. Lot to lot drainage shall not be allowed. If lot to lot drainage cannot be
avoided, drainage shall be controlled by underground pipes with easements.
i
g
t
26
o. This development shall comply with all recommendations as stated in_ the soil
investigation for this project.
P. Signing and striping shall conform to City standards.
q. All street lights within -this 'development shall have Corona /Ely standard
metal fixtures' and be dedicated to the City for ownership and.maintenance.
r. All & rading and erosion control shall: conform to the City of Petaluma
Erosion Control Ordinance 15.76.
S. Water pressure calculations shall be required for this development verifying
..
the system adequacy for fire flows and domestic service ( wh en
t. A ten (10) foot PUE. , Public Utility Easement shall be shown on the Final
Map and dedicated adjacent to all public rights of way except along parcels
to be dedicated to the City.
U. Back -up /turn- around areas shall be provided on Lots 29, .30, and 82 subject
to approval by Engineering staff.
Fire Marshal Conditions:
4. The following condition from the City Fire Marshal shall be conditions of Tentative
Map approval:
a.. Address shall be posted at or near main entry door minimum two inch
letters.
b. Noy parking all be allowed along private drive "A "; "No Parking" signs .shall
be posted on private drive- "A" subject to review and approval by the Fire
Marshal and Engineering Director..
: c. All roof covering material shall have a Class 'B" rating, or better,, treated in
accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 32.7. .
d. All roof covering materials applied: as exterior wall covering, shall have a fire
rating of class "b ", treated in accordance with UBC Standard 32.7, as per
Ordinance 1744aof the City of;Peialuma
e.: Provide fire suppression system at .normal sources of ignition. These areas
are, specifically at clothes dryers, kitchen stoves, furnaces,. water heaters,
fireplaces, and in attic areas at vents and chimneys for these appliances and
equipment.
L Fire hydrant location. are accepted as shown on the Tentative Map dated
May, 1993 (revised July, 93).
Building.Inspection Conditions:
5.. The following conditions of the Building Division shall be. considered'conditions of
Tentative Map approval:
a.. Grading must be certified.when completed. to indicate. compliance with
approved.plans and will be required for , occupancy.
b. Soils with expansion index greater than 20 requires special design foundation
per Uniform Building Code 2904(b).
C.. - Show site drainage and & rading topography.
di Indicate all utilities .or site plan.
e. Responsible party to sign plans.
f Submit soils report to-verify foundation design.
g: Plans must show, compliance to 1991 UBC, UPC, UMC, and 1990 NEC.
Plans must also, show compliance to current Title 24 .Energy Code.
h. Provide structural calculations for all non- conventional design items.
Z
`,.,ry sna g , s - ,,�, ,
' F
2/
� 3
4
5
I
City Transit Coordinator:
1
6. The following conditions of the City
conditions of Tentative Map approval:
Transit Coordinator shall be considered
6
8
10
11
�r
20
21
22
23
24
25
0
r
r•
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
0
1
2
3
54
a. An additional bus stop shall be installed by the applicant along Sonoma
1 Mountain Parkway east of the Maria intersection if required by Golden Gate
Transit and the City Transit Coordinator.
ti. The above improvements if required =must be shown on the public
improvement plans for the subdivision and approved by City Staff prior to
consideration of the Final Map by the City Council.
7. The following conditions of the City Water Department shall be considered a
conditions of Tentative Map approval: -
The applicant shall install an additional 8" water connection to Sonoma
Mountain Parkway and a 2" "blow off'.
The above improvements shall be shown on the public improvement plans
for the Subdivision and approved by the City Water Department prior to
consideration of the Final Map by the City Council.
8. The following Mitigation Measures (not addressed by other conditions of PUD or
Tentative Subdivision Map approval) adopted with the Corona Ely Specific Plan
shall be conditions of Tentative'Map approval:
The developer shall be responsible for the installation of the privacy wall
along the property's Sonoma Mountain Parkway frontage. The wall shall be
at least six feet high and constructed to the specifications of the Sonoma
Mountain Parkway Design Guidelines. An acoustical report must be
submitted to the Planning Department prior to final approval by SPARC and
prior to Final Map approval, to determine whether or not any special noise
attenuation improvements will be required and whether or not returns at the
ends of the wall will be needed. Any recommendations identified in the
acoustical report shall be considered conditions of project approval subject to
review by City Staff. The plans for the wall and any proposed improvements
along the Sonoma Mountain Parkway frontage, shall be to approval
by SPARC prior to submittal of the Final Map. The developer shall be
responsible for the cost of a noise analysis and will be responsible for
providing improvement plans for the Sonoma Mountain Parkway frontage.
Improvement Plans for Sonoma Mountain Parkway frontage must be
submitted prior to or concurrent with the Final Map application.
In the event that archaeological remains are encountered during grading,
work shall be halted temporarily and a qualified archaeologist shall be
consulted for evaluation of the artifacts and to recommend future action.
The local Indian community shall also be notified and consulted in the event
any archaeological remains are uncovered.
10
1 ..
2
3 NEW BUSINESS
4
5 III. DL&NNA GILL, CHILI) CARE CENTER, 1682 CREEKVIEW CIRCLE, AP -NO.
6 149 - 090 -47 FILE NO. CUP93'022.
7
8 Appeal of administrative approval, child care center at 1682 Creekview Circle in the
9 Creekview Commons Planned Unit Development.
10
11 The public hearing was opened.
12
13 SPEAKERS:
14
15 Principal PI'anner.Jim McCann presented the staff report. -
16 Roberta Gootedohn - Creekview Commons HomeOwners Association representative not
17 all homeowners were notified of this project, liability "is the main concern; traffic /parking
18 concerns; conditions regarding liability need to be conditions of approval; a client of Ms.
19 Gill has already collided with a child, in the subdivision.
20 Jim Pandiani - Creekview Commons' Board of Directors - did not know that a child care
21 center was operating now; why weren't all homeowners notified? how can _a business
22 operate when CC &R's state otherwise? all homeowners should be notified in the future;
23 why wasn't the Board of Directors notified?
24 Martha "Pugh - 1721 Drake Court - concerns regarding liability; is child care exempt from
25 local laws?
— 26 Planning Director Pamela Tuft - reiterated that the City does not become involved in
27 liability, issues. between homeowner /Homeowner's Association.
28 Dianna.Gill Applicant Has had liability insurance with Homeowner's Association named
29 as an additional insured since daycare started over a year ago; described daycare operation;
30 would like. 8 children 5 days a week (full - time) and four additional children (part - time) 3
31 days a week, 3 hours (9:00 AM - noon)..
32 Jan Mandrell . -,,.Child attends daycare; no parking /traffic problems; collision -with. child
33 mentioned earlier involved her - the child ran into the side of her van;'
an daycare center is
34 operated in. a :conscientious manner; all parents' know that they cannot park on Creekview
35 Circle.
36 Pete Newcombe - Child attends daycare; center is: run like a swiss watch; no parking '
37 problems; parents have staggered drop -off and pick -up times; seems like the only question
38 is with liability insurance.
39 Douglas Scranton - ;1639 - Creekview Circle - Homeowners Association representative - All
40 homeowners should. be' notified in the future concerns with liability insurance; many
41 homeowners would object if they were.noticed.
42 Bob Redman - Homeowner - directly across from Ms. Gill - There have been no "problems
43 with, parkin traffic; children are escorted, down to the park; Ms. Gill has permission to use
44 his driveway at any time for parents picking up or dropping off children.
45. Andrea Spangler 1684 Creekview (next door neighbor) - spoke in support of daycare
46 center: operator.is very careful where parents park: has not seen any problems.
47 Commission Discussion Commission did not feel there was a parking problem; several
48 Commissioners visited the site and did not detect traffic /parking problems.
49
50 The public hearing was closed.
51
52 A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by .Commissioner Torliatt
53 to find this project exempt from the requirements of CEQA and approve a Conditional
54 Use Permit to allow a Large Family Daycare facility (limited to 8 children full -time; and 4
11
12
r
r�1 ,
1
children part -time) at 1682 Creekview Circle, based on the findings and subject to the
2
followi g amended conditions:
3
I
4
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes
5 .'
- COMMISSIONER PARKERSON Yes
6
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
7
COMNIISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
8
CHAIRMAN BENNETT: Yes
9
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
10
COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes
'
11
Findm�s
1. The proposed large family daycare, as conditioned, will conform to the
requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance.
2. The proposed large family daycare, as conditioned, will conform to the
r
equirements and intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan.
20
3. The proposed large family daycare, as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance or
21
be detrimental to the public welfare of the community.
22
I
23
4. This project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Section 15301, Minor Alteration
24
of Existing Structures.
25
- 26
Conditions
27
I
28
1. The daycare operation shall be limited to care for net inof-,-, 4-han eight (8) children
29
full -time and an additional four (4) children part-time (3 hours /day, 3 days per week).
30
eny -time:
31
(
32
2. Parking for drop -off and pick -up of children shall be limited to the four designated
33
parking spaces in front of the house or along Monroe Street. Parking along the curb
34
within Creekview Commons is prohibited.
35
36
3. All conditions set forth in Section 21 -500 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance
37
including, but not limited to, the following shall be complied with:
38
39
a. The proposed daycare home shall comply with applicable Building and Fire
40
Code provisions, with applicable Budding Codes, Fire Code standards
41
adopted by the City Fire Marshal, and with Social Services' Department
42
licensing requirements (California Administrative Code, Title 22, Division
43
2).
44
45
b Drop -off and pick -up of children at the proposed daycare home shall be
46
I staggered to avoid burdening the with excessive traffic.
47
48
c: Noise generated from the proposed daycare home shall not exceed
49
established standards and policies as set forth in the General Plan, i.e., not to
"0
exceed Ldn 60 as measured outside on neighboring property.
51
2
d. The use permit for large family daycare shall be reviewed at any time upon
"3
receiving complaints a€tef -one -year by the Director to identify and achieve
54
mitigation of any adverse conditions related to the daycare activities'
12
30
conformance to these Zoning Ordinance regulations. The Director may
mitigate problems related to noise; traffic, parking, and code violations by
imposm& new conditions such as limiting hours of operation, requiring
installation of solid fencing, .subsequent or periodic review, etc., at.his/her
.direction. The Director shall give notice of this review to , owners and
residents of property ;immediately adjacent to the .large family daycare to
allow at least ten days for comment.
e. The facility will be operated. in a manner which will not adversely affect
adjoining residences.
4. ' This facility shall conform to Group R occupancy, Division 3 as defined in UBC
Section #405, 1201, and 1233 of the California Building Code (copy attached).
5. All requirements of the Fire Marshall shall be met, including: x ,
a. TO-tat for large family daycare is 8 children, including children.of provider if
under the age of 10.
b. Provide a device for sounding a fire alarm other than the ".smoke detector
installed at -or near the sleeping area (whistle on a chain around the neck not
permitted).
C. Two (2) exits are required. Fait doors can open in, and one may a sliding
glass door.
d: Dead -bolt locks not permitted.
e.. No- knowledge lock sets only. Inner- connect sets are approved.
L Smoke detectors are required at or near all sleeping areas or rooms.
g.
Type five construction permitted.
h. In two -story resident structures, children shall be cared for on the ground
-floor only.
i.. Provide emergency exit plans posted in a location determined by =the provider
.and inspector, with 9 -1 -1 phone decal, phone numbers and operators
statement.
j. Open flame devices are not permitted (candles).
k. No extension cords. All appliances and equipment shall be direct plug -in.
Surge protectors may be used as an alternative.
1. All appliances shall be in proper working order.
m. Flammable liquid storage for maintenance shall be stored in such a manner
as to not permit access to children.
n. Provide fire extinguisher 2A rated A -B -C dry chemical type.
13
1
j.. 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
�1
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
7
8
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
0
`1
2
53
54
0
Door on bathrooms and closets shall be openable from the inside by a child.
If lockable, door can be unlocked from the outside by an adult.
Provide protective cover over the receptacles in rooms where children age
five (5) and younger will be quartered.
Fire drills are required once each month. Maintain fire drill log for future
inspections.
Use permit for large family daycare is required from the Planning
Department prior to providing .care for children.
1
IV. EMIL DEVINCENZI, PETALUMA TIRE SOURCE, 611 PETALUMA BLVD.
NORTH, AP NO. 006-091-34 & 37, FILE NO. CUP93030.
Request to amend an existing CUP to permit the relocation of employee parking,
tire storage, and loading zone areas.
The public hearing was opened.
Princip''1 Planner Jim McCann presented the staff report.
Emil Devincenzi - applicant - history of business on this site; more public awareness of tire
business recently; Fire Marshal, has been in contact during the last year, Petaluma Tire
Source has cooperated fully, has passed all Fire Marshal inspections; many of the things the
carpet Business is doing next door is being blamed on tire business; trees have been planted
along the perimeter fence line to block views and diminish any sound; not requesting an
expansion, requested amendment will streamline operation.
Commissioner Torl iatt visited site today there were 3' -4 apparently inoperable vehicles,
steel stored along building; storage of cars should not be allowed.
Paul Spedick - (home behind the tire store and carpet business) - properties surrounding
the tirie store all find business noisy (tires are broken down, rims thrown on Saturday
mornings,. etc.), trucks loaded with trash parked in the area; tire business and carpet
business, should not be at this site- site borders an historic neighborhood; continue this item
to October so neighbors can be made aware of this request.
Commissioner Parkerson - has noticed improvements to site recently; fencing at rear of site
needs to'be improved; abandoned cars need to be removed.
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Landscaping needs to be maintained.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made' by Commissioner vonRaesfeld and seconded by Commissioner
Parkerson to find this project exempt ;from the requirements of CEQA and to approve an
amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for Petaluma Tire Source located at 611
Petaluma Boulevard North based on the findings and subject to the 'amended conditions
listed below:
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes
COMMISSIONER PAR'KERSON Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN BENNETT: Yes
31
14
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
1�0
1`1
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
51
52
53
54
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes
Fines
1. The proposed Conditional Use Permit Amendment, as conditioned, will .conform to
the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance.
2. The proposed Conditional Use Permit: Amendment, as conditioned', will conform to .
the requirements and intent,'ggals,. and policies of the Petaluma General Plan.,
3. The Conditional Use Permit Amendment will not constitute a nuisance or
be detrimental to the public welfare of `the community.
4. This project. is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Section 15301, Existing Facilities,
of the CEOA Guidelines. y
Conditions
1. All conditions of. approval from the Planning Commission's 3/21/78 Conditional
Use Permit and Site Design review approval shall remain in full force and effect..
2. Exhibit A shall be_ approved as amended to show the approved parking, storage and_
loading areas.
.3. Hours of . _operation shall be limited to those :posted at the Petaluma Tire Source;
1Vlonday to Friday 8AM to 5PM, Saturday 8AM. to 2PM.
4. A landscale.plan, landscape maintenance plan and fencing plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Director for review and approval within 30 days of this approval and
.landscaping shall be installed_ within 60 days of this approval around new parking
areas as° shown- on Exhibit A.
5. The property shall be kept cleared of all weeds and debris.
6. Spacing of aisles and height of tire stacks shall comply with the Uniform;Fire Code.
7 Parking lot shall be striped to City Standards., and abandoned vehicles removed within
30 days of this approval, subject to review by,Planning staff.
8. This Conditionat Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director within 6
months from the effective date of this amendment to determine compliance with the
conditions, of approval.. During this review, the Planning Director may add conditions
as determined necessary.
V. CHARLES METZ, METZ ACCESSORY BUILDING, AP NO. 007 - 313 -10, FILE
NO. VAR93008.
Request to approve :a variance to permit an accessory building at 69 Alta to
encroach into required side and rearyard setbacks.
The public hearing was opened.
15
33
1 SPEAKERS:
2•
3 Principal Planner Jim Mct ar �; presented the staff report.
4 Commission Comment uilding is violating fire /building codes, not built to one -hour
5 rating; `property owner should have investigated setbacks and need for building permit
T rio' .
huck `building the stri.!cture.
7
6 C huck to M et z - applicant - neighbors in area do not have a problem with building where it is
8 located!.
9 -'
10 The public hearing was closed.
11 j
(�
'A mcti'on was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman
to deny the variance based on the findings listed below:
COMINI II SSIONER SHEA: Yes
COMIMT; S ONER PARKERSON Yes
COIALV&SSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
C bIvfMIkLSSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
CA-W MAN BENNET T: Yes
20 ��' MmilSSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
21 COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes
22
23 �
24 i
25 1. There do not exist exceptional, peculiar, or unusual conditions inherent in the
-
2 property sufficient to cause hardship, and which are not common to most other
7 properties in the same zoning district.
_8
29 -2. The hardship is created by an act of the owner.
30
31 3. Strict interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would not deprive the applicant of
32 privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zoning district.
33
34 4. The variance would result in a special privilege for the applicant which is not
35 eI joyed by neighboring properties.
37 Further,! it is recommended that staff be directed to pursue the matter as an abatement
38 'action and require the shed to be either moved or reconfigured to meet Zoning Ordinance
39 setback,
40
41 — y
42 ' Planning, Director Pamela Tuft reported that the APA Conference will be held in Modesto
43 on Octo 3-6 of California Cities in San Francisco in the spring.
44
45 . ADJOURNMENT : 10:45 PM
46
47 min824 /pc- m in9
' f
16