HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/24/1994195
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I*
20
21
22
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING May 24, 1994
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
Hans Grunt, Assistant Planner
Chairman
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of May 10, 1994 were approved as distributed.
23
24 PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
1 21
26 . DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None.
27
28 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner vonRaesfeld found (in the parking lot of
29 City Hall) a letter addressed to the Planning Commission regarding the McClure project.
30
31 CORRESPONDENCE: Letter from William Evans regarding McClure project; 15 letters in
32 support of McClure project; letter from Victor Nagel regarding KOA; letter from Layna
33 Berman regarding McClure project; memo from City Traffic Engineer regarding KOA;
34 memo from Sonoma County Economic Development Board; letter from Dusty Labette
35 regarding McClure project.
36
37 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
38
39 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
40
41
42 NEW BUSINESS
43 PUBLIC HEARING
44
45- I. WAYNE WOOD; KOA; 20 RAINSVI °LLE ROAD; AP NO. 007 - 433 -003; FILE
46 CUP93042(hg).
47
48 Request for approval of a 3.6 acre expansion of the existing RV and boat storage
49 area to permit the storage of approximately 250 additional RV's and /or boats.
50 Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of a Conditional Use
51 Permit is requested.
152
Planning. Commission Minutes
May 24, 1994 197
1 Principal Planner Jim McCann presented the staff report.
2 City Traffic Engineer Allan Tilton answered questions regarding requested improvements
3 to the Stony Point and Rainsville Road intersection.
4
5 The public hearing was opened.
6
7 SPEAKERS:
8
9 Dee Jones - 1399 Spring Hill Road - project will be an eyesore; traffic concerns - already
10 too much traffic on Stony Point Road.
11 Doug Green - 811 Stony Point - (lived in area since 1947) - Represents family (owners of
private ; commercial air strip : Liberty Field); KOA has filed complaints regarding ultra -
light fli'g'hts and skydiving activities; RV parking will be right up to the common property
line - may be unsafe for airplanes; operations of skydiving and ultralights will be closer to
habitated area with this use.
Planning Director Pamela Tuft - clarified that proposal is for storage only, no campsites or
habitation.
Doug Green - If KOA uses move closer to air strip operations, Federal safety requirements
for ultra -light flight will be harder to meet and will add more liability.
20 Mike Medglie - 1399 Spring Hill - RV's will drop waste, diesel, cause ground water
21 problems; trees around area will take a long time to, conceal views.
22 Wayne Wood - KOA owner - KOA has been a ,good neighbor in area; County has begun
23 abatement proceedings on ultra light flights and parachute dumping (distributed letter from
24 County regarding need for Use Permit for airstrip); KOA is on City sewer and has a dump
25 station on the site (required by State law).
0 6
7 The public hearing was closed.
8
9 Commission Discussion
30
31 KOA is very well kept and managed, Petaluma should be proud of operation; this type of
32 storage is needed in Petaluma; screening should not be a problem; storage use not high -
33 traffic generating; can the tree planting be meandered instead of straight line to create a
34 more "natural" effect? existing uses are well screened by existing trees; traffic is not a
35 problem now; no dumping /fueling signs should be posted.
36
37 A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman
38 to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a
39 3.6 acre, RV and Boat Storage Facility based on the findings and subject to the amended
40 mitigations and conditions listed below:
41
42 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes
43 COMMISSIONER PARKERSON Yes
44 COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
45 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
46 CHAIRMAN BENNETT: Yes
47 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
48 COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes
49
0 Findin s for or Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
1 - ) 1
2 1. An Initial Study has been prepared and proper notice provided in accordance with
CEQA and local guidelines.
54
198 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1994
2. Based upon the Initial Study and comments received,, .potential ;impacts could be
avoided or .reduced to a level- of insignificance by mitigation measures attached as
conditions of approval. There is no substantial evidence that the project, as
conditioned, would have a significant effect on the environment.
3. The project does have potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the Fish
and Game code, either individually or cumulatively and is not exempt from Fish and
Game �, filing fees because significant wildlife resources have been identified on
adjacent property that may be aversely effected by site drainage resulting from this
project.
4. A monitoring program has been included to ensure compliance with the adopted
mitigation measures.
5. The project is not located on a site listed on any hazardous waste site .list compiled
by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
6. The Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study /Negative Declaration and
considered the comments before making a decision on the project.
7. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public
review at the City of Petaluma Planning Department, City Hall, 11 English Street,
Petaluma, California.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit
1. The proposal for a.3.6 acre RV and Boat Storage Facility to accommodate up to 250
RV's and Boats, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent of the
Petaluma Zoning Ordinance because it is located entirely within that portion of..the
property zoned for Light Industrial uses and does not encroach into the Agricultural
district or the Flood Plan overlay zone.
2.- The proposal for a 3.6 acre RV and Boat Storage Facility to accommodate up to 250
RV's and Boats, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent, goals,
and policies of the Petaluma General Plan because it provides for a better economic
use of the land.
3. The proposal for a 3.6 acre RV and Boat Storage Facility to accommodate up to 250
RV's and Boats, as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental. to
the public welfare of the community.
Mitigation Measures
1. All grading and excavation required for this development shall include erosion
control measures as prescribed in the Petaluma Municipal Code regarding grading
and construction, subject to staff review and approval prior to issuance of a grading
permit.
2. Plans submitted for a grading and improvement permit shall include measures for
the long term effects of drainage including, but not limited to, energy dissipation at
the outlets of drainage systems including drainage pies and swales; if any, subject to
staff `review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
Q
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
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
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1994 199
3. A detailed parking plan and landscape plan shall be submitted for administrative
SPARC'review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit.
4. The landscape plan shall be augmented with an additional row of Redwood trees 20'
on center along the northerly border of the storage yard, and where there are gaps
between the existing tree canopies along the westerly border. Additionally, a City
approved irrigation system shall be included on the plan and installed to service the
,new tree plantings. Tree planting shall occur in a staggered or meandering fashion to
create a more natural appearance.
5. All new tree planting shall be monitored for a period of five (5) years after
installation by the project proponent to insure good health and survival. Monitoring
responsibilities shall include regular watering, trimming, trunk stabilizing measures,
and tree replacement as necessary.
6. In the event that archaeological remains are encountered during grading, the work
'shall be halted 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.
7. The applicant shall submit to the City the ; required Fish and Game Fees ($1,275.00)
in the form of a check made out to the County of Sonoma prior to issuance of a
grading and /or building permit.
8. No outdoor /parking lot lighting shall be permitted within this RV and boat storage
area.
9. The project applicant shall offer for dedication, prior to issuance of a grading permit,
-lands necessary for intersection improvements at Stony Point Road and Rainsville
Road. The dedication shall be nonrevokable and shall be dedicated at such time as
needed to complete the improvements.
10. Signs shall be posted, prior to commencement of use, advising that no fueling or waste
dumping are allowed within the RV/boat storage facility.
Conditions:
1. All requirements of the Engineering Department shall be complied with, including:
a. Submit erosion control plan for areas effected by grading prior to issuance of
a grading and /or building permit.
2. All requirements of the Planning Department shall be complied with, including:
a. This use permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review at
any time due to complaints regarding lack of compliance with conditions of
approval, traffic congestion, noise generation, or other adverse operating
characteristics. At such time, the Commission may revoke the use permit or
add /modify conditions of approval.
b. The applicants /developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the
City or any of its boards, commission, 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
0
200 Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1994
1 of the project when such claim or action is brought within the time period
2 provided for in applicable State and /or local statutes. The City shall
3 promptly notify the applicants /developers of any such claim, action, or,
4 proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in
5 this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of any
6 claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees and costs,
7 and the City defends the action in good faith.
8
9 C. Any outdoor advertising signs shall be submitted for review and approval by
10 the Planning Director. All signs must conform to the Zoning Ordinance and
11 be compatible with this facility and surrounding uses.
12
II. BOB MCCLURE; 16 8TH STREET, 819 B STREET AP NO.'S 008- 171 -011 AND
018; FILE NO.'s VAR94002, LLA94001, PCL94002, CUP94003(dh).
Request to reconfigure and subdivide two properties containing 28,560 sq.ft. in
order to create one new residential lot of 7,475 sq.ft. upon which a single-family
home 'will be built. Two existing dwelling units will be removed from 819 B Street
and a new accessory dwelling constructed. Adoption, of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and approval of a Variance Lot Line Adjustment, Conditional'
Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map is requested.
Principal Planner Jim McCann presented the staff report.
Commissioner Shea - Are any changes planned for the 8th or B Street homes?
Jim McCann - no exterior changes, 'B" Street house is now a duplex, one unit will be
eliminated.
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Do all lots meet area requirements?
Jim McCann - Yes, all lots will be 6,500 sq.ft. or more; gave history of existing non-
conforming lots in area.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Bill Fishman - (Attorney representing Milton Mossey, neighbor at 815 B Street) - Mr.
Mossey has concerns with lack of privacy with a two -story accessory dwelling, will be a
towering structure peering into his backyard will destroy privacy; showed photo of Mr.
Mossey's driveway; will driveway on project site be required to be widened to 12' wide?
new residence will be larger than existing unit, will create more traffic in neighborhood;
privacy main concern, traffic and deteriorating character of neighborhood secondary
concerns.
Terj.Y Kosewic - 826 B Street - property behind McClure property; no objections with flag
lot; no granny unit should be allowed on rear lot.
Tom Sipes - 26 8th Street - design needs to be sensitive to existing neighborhood; windows
on second story will look,,into his home; privacy concerns.
Layda Berman - 911 8th. Street - moved into area because it is not a high density area:
neighborhood has experienced much more traffic lately; concers with two -story home at
back of existing lot, privacy for neighbors; proposal includes construction activity beginning
at 7AM, would like to see no earlier than 9AM and not later than 6PM.
John Scrgneri - 820 C Street - Windows will look into his backyard; neighborhood is
unique; traffic, noise, density will decrease property values; concerns with lights shining
5
d m
Planning Commission,Minutes May 24, 1994 201
1 into his backyard, construction noises; the notice was too complicated; this will be a sore
2 thumb in the middle of a beautiful neighborhood.
3 Dusty Labbette - 830 C Street - backyard is private now; concerns with construction noises
4 during the day; the house built seven years ago is huge.
5 Lucia Antonelli - 26 8th Street - privacy of neighborhood will be lost; sense of community
6 will be infringed upon; neighbors need to be taken into consideration, will affect a lot of
7 people's happiness.
8 Robert', 'McClure - Applicant - Addresses privacy concerns; no windows on one side of
9 house; will design something that everyone will be happy with; would like to meet with all
10 concerned to work out design questions.
11 Pamela __Tuft - Reviewed issue of density, explained varying densities in urban area;
explained notice requirements; read 2 letters into record (letter from Marvin Brody, 827 B
Street, against project and letter from Dusty Labbette against project).
The public hearing was closed.
Commission Discussion
Developable land exists on site; project needs work; scale of two -story home should be
20 looked at; redesign project; prolosed two -story too obtrusive; support in -fill projects, this
21 design needs to be more sensitive to neighborhood; construction hours should be 8 -8:30
22 AM, not 7 AM; character of neighborhood needs to be preserved through historic
23 architecture.
24
25 This item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 14 to allow staff,
26 neighborhood and applicant to work on design issues. If resulting submittal is a
1 7 substantially different project, item will be renoticed.
8
29 The main areas of concern include the following:
30
31 - massive two -story house on flag lot inappropriate
32 - address construction hours ,
33 - add architectural details to compliment historic nature of the neighborhood
34 - full SPARC review should be considered for new units
35
36
37 III. ANDY PODSHADLEY; SITE BETWEEN 217 AND 227 BODEGA AVENUE
38 (FORMERLY THE SITE OF THE OLD WHITE CHICKEN HATCHERY); AP NO.
39 606- 302 -028; FILES VAR94005 AND PCL94004(hg).
40
Request to Negative d i de the 0.24 acre site into three residential lots. Adoption of a
42
41 Mitigated Declaration and approval of three Variances to authorize
43 reduced lot depths, three Variances to authorize reduced rear yard setbacks, and a
44 three lot Tentative. Parcel Map is requested.
45
46 Principal Planner Jim McCann presented the staff report.
47
48 The public hearing was opened.
49
0 SPEAKERS:
1
2 Lloyd Smalley - 222 Bodega - (read a statement written by Gary Broad) Concerns include
3 inconsistency with General Plan; lot size not as large as General Plan dictates.
IN
202 Planning Commission Minutes
6
7
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
51
52
53
54
May 24, 1994
Cristine O'Connor .630 Baker Has been a good neighbor to Mr: Podshadley; applicant
has indicated' he would consider dropping, one _lot; should be divided into two lots, not
three; these are proposed to be very close to street and sideyards; variances requested are
extensive; concerns with traffic, addition of three driveways; should be denied without
prejudice.
David Sievers - 630 Baker - Showed layout of proposed project; concerns with front yard
setbacks; exiting on the flag driveway unsafe to Baker Street; lot being overdeveloped;
should be redesigned with only two lots; deny without prejudice.
John O'Connor - 630 Baker - Lived in neighborhood for 9 years; these backyards will not
be big enough; traffic too busy already on Baker; only two homes and maybe an accessory
unit should be built; deny without prejudice.
Skill Sommer - Realtor - Reminded neighbors of previous plans. for this parcel: when
hatchery was in, place, there were no setbacks from property line; major concerns with fire
safety when hatchery building was there; Heritage Homes had no concerns with removal of
hatchery building; project proposed is a vast improvement over any other proposed use.
David Shaffer - 227 Bodega purchased property in 1989; water main on Baker is only 1
1/2" (substandard); water pressure already substandard; proposed retaining wall on. Lot 3
only 3 from his property line; concerns with water seepage under his house 90 foot long
driveway unsafe; too much traffic /high speeds on Baker already; adding street trees will
impair sight. distance on Baker; using existing non - conforming garage on property line to
justify variances to front yard setbacks is not acceptable; lots too small; house will tower
over his existing house with no screening; not against in -fill projects, but this is
overbuilding.
Charles ,Beavers - 217 Bodega Major concerns with proposal; project too dense;
neighborhood privacy will be destroyed; homes will adversely affect value of existing
homes; urges denial without prejudice.
Brian Bermingham - 639 Baker - This project is too, dense; 90' driveway - .dangerous; these
will become rental units; cars will be parked on street; maybe rental. , units should be
designed for this site; not against development; would like to work with applicant; two lots
with accessory unit would be acceptable.
David Richardson - Had meeting with applicant who indicated two houses with accessory
dwelling would built, no problems with that.
Wayne Miller - Lieb and Miller Architects (project architect) - discussed proposed density
driveway design; project designed to scale of existing neighborhood; architectural elements
of victorian homes captured; applicant willing to work with neighborhood.
Dale. Smalley - 222 Bode�a - project is in conflict with residential compact zoning: doesn't
fit into neighborhood; trying to over - build; needs to be redesigned.
Bee B� e
rmingham -.228 Bodega - only two homes, not three should be allowed; value of
homes in area will be lowered; existing parking problem on Bodega.
Arnold Oster n - 12 Park Avenue - turn down three units; two units acceptable; stop
approving any °variances to allow sub-standard lots.
Andy Podshadley - Applicant - met 'with property owners, has revised plans; - several times;
neighbors have been great help willing to agree not to put third unit on rear lot; has been
negotiating with neighbor to sell third lot, but needs lot split to sell lot.
Greg Smith -635 Baker - Concerns.with large homes on small lots: is 3,000 sq.ft. lot legal?
The public hearing was closed.
Planning Director Pamela Tuft - Regarding the questions of 1988 in -fill policy - policy was
decided by the Planning Commission (in -fill dimensions defer to Zoning. Ordinance) not
previous Community Development and Planning Director.
_ I
Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 1994
1 Commission Discussion
2
3 Long driveway from Baker is unreasonable, will not work; rest of project falls apart after
4 that; fewer than three units should be developed; these three units are too large to work;
5 project too dense, too close to property lines; water main issue needs to be researched as
6 well as drainage issue; project should be redesigned; can't make findings for Variances.
7
8 A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner
9 Thompson to exempt this project from CEQA (for purpose of denial) and to deny this
10 project without prejudice based on the following findings:
11
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON Yes
4 COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner
21 Parkerson to deny without prejudice the request for Variances (lot depths and rearyard
22 setbacks) and a three -lot Parcel Map for AP No. 006 - 302 -028; based on the following
23 findings:
24
25 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes
1 26 COMMISSIONER PARKERSON Yes
27 COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
28 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
.29 CHAIRMAN BENNETT: Yes
30 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
31 COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes
32
33 Findings for denial of six Variances from the R -C Zoning District Standards to permit the
34 creation of Lots 1,2, and 3 with substandard depth, and substandard rear yard depth as
35 shown on the Tentative Parcel Map submitted March 23,1994:
36
37 1. The property has peculiar and unusual conditions including. large size (approximately
38 10,454 sgft.); the double frontage nature of the parcel; restricted access from Bodega
39 Avenue imposed by the City, and the site topography. However, these conditions are not
40 sufficient to cause a hardship that is unique to the property in question.
41.
42 2. No hardship peculiar to the property exists which causes the need for the variances
43 requested. Reasonable development of the property is possible in compliance with the
44 development standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
45
46 3. Reasonable development of the property is possible in compliance with the development
47 standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, approval of Variances are not necessary
48 for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights that are possessed by
49 ;other properties in the same district and in the vicinity, and the granting of these
50 Variances would result in a special privilege for the owner /applicant that is not enjoyed
51 by neighboring properties.
52
53 4. Based on evidence presented during the public hearing before the Planning
54 Commission, the authorization of Variances permitting the creation of Lots 1,2 and 3
203
204
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Planning Commission Minutes
May 24, 1994
with substandard depths and rear yard, setbacks will result in a substantial detriment to
neighboring properties, and other properties in the vicinity because it could result in the
over - building of the lots,, the loss of privacy, and inadequate on -site ingress and egress
that may jeopardize traffic safety on Baker Street.
Given the denial of the Variances, the Tentative Parcel Map would be inconsistent with the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. The Tentative Parcel Map is
therefore denied without prejudice.
IV. PROJECT STATUS:
1. General Plan Amendments (rescheduled for June 14th meeting)
2. Food-4-Less - Denied at City Council
3. RESA - Lease authorized by City Council, environmental review should commence
shortly
4. Petaluma Cinemas - DEIR being summarized.
L AISONREPORTS:
1. SPARC - None
2. Tree Advisory Committee - None
3. River Enhancement Committee - None
26
27 ADJOURNMENT 10:35 PM
28
29
30
31
32 minO524 / planjtl
E