Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/10/1995331 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 3 REGULAR MEETING January 10, 1995 4 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. 5 CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA 6 7 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 8 9 ROLL CALL: Present: Rahman, Stompe, Thompson *,'Torliatt, vonRaesfeld, Wick 10 11 STAFF: Warren Salmons, Assistant City Manager Jim McCann, Principal Planner Jennifer Barrett, Senior Planner * Chairman APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of December 13, 1994 were approved as printed. 20 21 PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 22 23 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. 24 5 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None. 6 7 CORRESPONDENCE: Memo from Kurt Yeiter regarding 1996 Development Objectives; 8 Letter from Maureen Joyce regarding Little Sprouts Daycare (76 Oak Street); Letters from 29 Bonnie Diefendorf and Vytas and Chris Tiel - Barauskas regarding 41 Shasta; Letter from 30 Robert Kupinsky regarding Westridge PUD Amendment (121 Vista View Place); 2 31 petitions in opposition to Westridge PUD Amendment; Memo from Pamela Tuft regarding 32 League of California Cities; Memo from Hans Grunt regarding Little Sprouts Daycare. 33 34 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read. 35 36 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda. 37 38 39 OLD BUSINESS: 40 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 41 42 I. BARLAS VARIANCE; 41 SHASTA AVENUE, AP NO. 019-030-006. Ukt) 43 44 Consideration of a Variance to allow an illegally constructed accessory structure to 45 encroach 3.27' into the required 4' -0" sideyard setback at 41 Shasta Avenue. 46 47 (Continued from the December 13, 1994 Planning Commission meeting.) 48 9 This item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 14, 1995 0 (by request of applicant and neighboring property owner). 1 52 332 NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS H. LITTLE SPROUTS DAYCARE; DIANA RHODES; 76 OAK STREET; AP NO. 006- 162-001 (hg). Consideration Exemption Use Permit to establish. a daycare/preschool facility or u to 45 children at he former DMV facility at 76 Oak Street. The public hearing was opened. Assistant Planner Hans Grunt presented the staff report. SPEAKERS: Commissioner Stompe - Questions regarding the presence of asbestos in the building. Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Raised parking and security questions, Building Code (handicapped access) compliance questions; status regarding State licensing.. Daphine Shapiro Very concerned with parking and traffic impacts for proposal; Blvd.. businesses park already in neighborhood, no street parking available for residents; the proposal.is too intense for neighborhood. Claire Stewart - Presented photos of parking conditions and Lombardi's Bakery trucks in neighborhood. Mitch Ferrick - Agreed with previous comments regarding traffic. Gail Connollv - Concerned with traffic and parking impacts of the proposal; where will the parents park? suggested offices would be a. more appropriate use for the property; noted that early morning is a very busy time in this neighborhood; commented' that the proposed trailer location is very visible - should .not be permitted; delivery services - (food, diapers, etc.) where will service trucks park? Kids will throw stuff into yards of adjacent properties; garage yard; underground tanks on auto repair shop site. Mike Healy - 304 Kentucky - Concerned with impact on the integrity of the historic district; noted that there is very limited parking on Oak and. Kentucky Streets ;. error in report regarding parking sign and loading zone; how many parking spaces would. be created? Need to drop off kids and take time to "transition" kids - inadequate parking; reference Little Oaks conditions (13 spaces); staggering times not practical - peak periods exist, need standards, what is "staggered "? Not opposed to additional daycare,, not opposed to facility at this site; grossly inadequate parking; deny without prejudice, analyze parking much more thoroughly. Diane Rhodes - Applicant - described experience and proposal; trailer to be used for offices. Commissioner Stompe - Questions regarding. the use of the trailer; suggested a shorter period (12 months) for the trailer; suggest a reconfiguration of the parking lot to gain additional parking. Dick Lieb - Parking could be reconfigured but would reduce open space and limit occupancy; described possibilities of site plan revisions, walking tightrope. regarding trade- offs. Commissioner Stompe - Will parking be available in the evening for meetings? Diane Rhodes - Evening meetings will be very infrequent - one every smonths. Commissioner Rahman - How will the trailer be secured? Dick Lieb - It will be connected directly to the sewer. line. Commissioner Torli'att - Have you considered other sites? Are you comfortable that you will have ample parking? 2 333 1 Diane Rhodes - Yes, 2 -3 others; parking will be ample with drop -offs /pick -ups staggered. 2 Commissioner Thompson - Agrees that parking is the issue. 3 Diane Rhodes - State requires two teachers per 15 kids, so will only have 30 kids initially - 4 not as much staff either, don't have peak staff at all times. 5 Dick Lieb - Fourth daycare facility that I've been involved with; all are tough and have 6 some problems; they all seem to work well in the neighborhood once established. 7 Don Pafocchi - Noted that there were many traffic problems when building was DMV, this 8 use may, create traffic hazards. 9 Commissioner Torliatt - Can't make CUP findings 3, 4 - inadequate parking. 10 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Supports daycare; site is well suited since it is in close 11 proximity to the neighborhood and commercial areas; difficult to make CUP finding #4. Commissioner Wick - Traffic impacts to neighbors is a part of living in close proximity to Petaluma Blvd. and commercial- areas; this is an appropriate site, supports project; does have concern with the use of the trailer. Commissioner. Rahman - Familiar with facility, supports request; monitor through CUP. Commissioner Stom e - Give it a chance; trailer no more than 12 months with additional space. Commissioner Clark - Too many kids? Principal Planner McCann - Suggests options to proceed and to address commission and 20 neighbor's concerns: reduce occupancy to not more than 30 children (at a given time) and 21 require; a 6 month review of the CUP. 22 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - More comfortable with 30 kids; should provide 8 on -site 23 parking spaces. 24 Diana Rhodes - 30 kids ok; trailer to be removed within 12 months. 25 6 The public hearing was closed. 7 8 A motion was made by Commissioner Stompe and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to 9 find this project categorically exempt from CEQA and to .approve a Conditional Use 30 Permit for the operation of a daycare /preschool with the existing and proposed 31 improvements at 76 Oak Street based on the findings and subject to the amended 32 conditions listed below: 33 34 COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes 35 CHAIRPERSON THOMPSON: Yes 36 COMMISSIONER WICK: Yes 37 COMMISSIONER STOMPS: Yes 38 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes 39 COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes 40 41 Findings: 42 43 1. This project is exempt from additional environmental review pursuant to Section 44 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the current 45 project does not introduce any new significant environmental impacts not 46 considered for the negative declaration previously adopted for the Use Permit for a 47 day- care /preschool on, the subject property in May of 1992. 48 49 2. The proposed Day Care Center, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements 0 and intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan by providing "all -day" 1 care for preschool aged children of working parents. 2 3 334 3. The proposed.Day Care Center, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements of. the Petaluma Zonin Ordinance as it applies to land uses within RMG districts, including provisions for child safety, privacy, and parking. 4. The proposed Day Care Center with provisions for adequate on -site parking, and staggered child drop -off will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Conditions of Approval: 1. All requirements of the Planning Department shall be met, including:. a. The 2 -hour parking sign on Oak Street near the entrance to the facility shall be replaced with a loading zone sign for parent drop- off /pick -up prior to occupation and operation of the facility. b. Drop -off and pick -up of children -shall be staggered to all extent possible to reduce traffic congestion and increase safety. C. Parents ;shall walk their children to and from the facility from their private vehicles. d. The operation of the day care /preschool shall be limited to the hours between 6 :00 AM to 6 :30 PM Monday through Friday. e. At no time, shall the children be left unsupervised 'm the building or on the playgrounds. L All Proposed fencing around the perimeter of the playgrounds shall. be a minimum of 6' tall, subject to staff review and approval prior to occupation and operation of the facility. g. Play equipment within the play yards that exceeds 8' in height shall be located a minimum of 5' from the perimeter property lines, subject to staff approval. review and h. A lands ap n planindicating the names and placement of all plant material within the existing and proposed planters shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior; to the operation of the facility. All ,approved landscaping and irrigation shall be 'installed within 45 days of occupancy and operation of the facility, subject to staff review and approval. i. To insure that the scale, design and color of the temporary office /rest -room facility does not present a visual nuisance in relation to the existing building and /or "surrounding structures,, a scaled plan and elevation drawings of the facility shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit and /or commencement of the business. j. The temporary office /rest -room facility shall be removed within 12 24 months following the Use Permit- approval date. Failure to remove the temporary facility within the allotted time may result in the revocation of the Use Permit. k. Plans for the construction of the'permanent rest -room facility shall be subject to administrative design review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 1. Proof of applicable licensing from the Department. of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division shall be provided prior to occupation and operation of this facility. M. The proposed parking and planter area near the southeast comer of the building shall be .modified to provide.one (1) Handicap space and one (1) standard space for a minimum of eight (8) on -site parking spaces, subject to staff review and approval prior to commencement of the business. 0 1 n. A maximum of 30 children shall be permitted, within the combined daycare /preschool facilities approved herein at any one time. Failure to comply with this condition may result in the revocation of the Use Permit. o. Sign permits must be obtained through the Building Department for any outdoor 5 advertising signs. Design shall: conform with the design of the building and its 6 immediate surroundings and the Zoning Ordinance, to staff satisfaction. 7 8 2. All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met, including: 9 10 a.. Provide fire extinguishers 2A rated ABC dry chemical type as required by the 11 Fire Marshal. b. No extension cords. All equipment and appliances shall be direct plug -in. C. Provide metal or flame retardant plastic waste cans. d. Post address at or near main entry door - minimum four (4) inch letters. e'. Day care /preschool operations are classified as an E -3 by the Uniform MID Building Code and are subject to all regulations associated with this classification. L Storage and janitor closets shall be of one -hour fire resistive construction with openings protected by 3/4 hour door assemblies. g Total occupancy - 41 maximum. inside key 21 li. Exit door, gates shall be openable from the without the use of a or 22 any special knowledge or effort. 23 i. Gates shall be provided where requested to allow access in the event of an 24 emergency. 25 j. Provide exit signs at required exits. 26 k. Building shall be sprinklered as required by Chapter 38 of the 1991 Uniform 7 Building Code. 8 1: An emergency fire /evacuation plan shall be posted including the following: 9 30 1. Fire Department phone number - 9 -1 -1. 31 2. Assignment of person responsible to call Fire Department in case of 32 33 an emergency. 3. Evacuation routes leading to public way and assembly area. 34 4. Instructions to be followed by teacher /instructor: teacher /instructor 35 shall remove roll book from classroom to call roll, and shall maintain 36 order during evacuation to assembly area. 37 38 m. Fire drills required monthly. A drill log is required for all drills for future 39 inspections by Fire Department or other agencies. 40 n. Provide smoke detectors in napping /sleeping rooms or areas. 41 0. Provide a device for teacher /instructor to sound a fire /emergency alarm and 42 to use for fire /emergency drills. 43 p. Exiting: exit ways, exit doors shall conform to the 1991 edition of the 44 Uniform Fire Code and the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code. 45 46 3. All requirements of the Chief Building Official shall be met, including: 47 48 a. The handicapped parking stall must provide a handicapped walk area on the 49 passenger side. 50 b. A building permit application and detailed construction drawings must be 1 submitted for the temporary office /rest -room and the permanent rest -room 2 for review and approval prior to installation /construction. 3 C. As a classroom, the facility's California Building Code Classification is E -3 D4 and as such must comply with Section 3802 b(1) of the Code. 5 336 4. All requirements of the Engineering Department shall be met, including: - - - - -- -=Peon �aFkgigrt= Oa'ltit��etea�- tl- etrnce to-th faeilitnl} be - emplaced - �! tip �- 4o�lirfg -z ©rye -�ig�- fir- �Fext =�- rip -of€f �i�l�rrp- ��ri ©F --tom oee�pati ©�r��- ©per�tion- a€�- h��ae�1t�: a.b. The project proponents) shall install a handicap ramp at the corner of Oak and Kentucky Streets and fix any broken portions of the sidewalk fronting the site within 60 days of occupancy: and operation of the facility. Failure to complete the improvements required pursuant to this condition within the time allotted may result in the revocation of this Use Permit. Standard Conditions: 5. All. new ,and. replacement street trees proposed within the public right -of -way shall be planted in accordance with the City's approved street tree list and planting standards. All on site plant material shall be served by a City approved automatic underground irrigation system. 6. All trees shall be a minimum fifteen gallon .size (i.e. trunk diameter of at least 3/4 inch measured one foot above the ground) and double staked; all. shrubs shall be five gallon size. All landscaped areas not improved with lawn shall be protected with a two -inch deep bark mulch as a temporary measure until the ground cover is established. 7. All planting shall be maintained. in good growing condition. Such maintenance shall include, where appropriate, pruning mowing, weeding, cleaning of debris and trash, fertilizing and regular watering. Whenever necessary, planting shall be replaced with other plant materials to insure 'continued compliance with applicable landscaping requirements. Required irrigation systems shall. be fully maintained in sound operating condition with heads periodically cleaned and replaced when missing to insure continued regular watering of landscape areas, and health and vitality of landscape materials. 8. Construction. activities shall comply, with applicable zoning ordinance and municipal code performance standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.). 9. Permit(s) for all outdoor advertising signs must be obtained through the Building Department, and be designed to conform with the Zoning Ordinance: Any outdoor advertising signs shall be submitted for .review and approval by the Planning Department. All signs must conform to the Zoning Ordinance and be compatible with the building and surroundings. 10. This Conditional 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. 11. The applicants /developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its boards, commission, agents,, officers, and, 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 on 337 1 locaf- statutes. The City shall -promptly notify the applicants /developers of any such 2 claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing 3 contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of 4 any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees and costs, 5 and the City defends the action in good faith. 6 7 8 III. WESTRIDGE UNITS 2 AND 3 PUD AMENDMENT; SUNNYSLOPE ROAD AND 9 "I" STREET (dh). 10 Consideration of CEQA Exemption and amendment to the PUD Guidelines to allow alternate roofing materials within the Westridge Subdivision, Units 2 and 3 (146 -lot subdivision). The public hearing was opened. Principal Planner Jim McCann presented the staff report. 19 SPEAKERS: 20 21 Brian Delon - (proponent) - Suggests alternate material, flat concrete tile. 22 Spence Burton - 313 Smith Drive - Spanish style tiles important; keeps uniform appearance 23 and fire, safe - is important issue; details (roofing materials) "make" the project and are an 24 important part of a PUD. �5 Ron Lively - 108 Vista View Place - Agree spanish tile should be retained; value of homes 6 important; home in question is very visible; alternate material will depreciate value of 7 other homes; homeowners should have inquired into restrictions prior to commencing work 8 or purchasing materials. 29 Robert Kupinsky - 144 Vista View Place - Agree with above. 30 Terry Clark - 125 Vista View Place - (neighbor to applicant) - Architectural consistency 31 important to neighborhood; cheaper alternative not acceptable to neighborhood. 32 Oliver Illia - 171 Clear View Court - Opposed to request; why change rules now? Suggest 33 compromise - metal roofing in spanish tile style. 34 Brian Delon - 121 Vista View - (Applicant) - Disturbed by requirement to install a certain 35 type of ;roof; no idea of cost of spanish tile; out of money now; appreciates neighbors 36 concerns. 37 Ron Lively - 108 Vista View Place - Recent additions /remodels were required to replace 38 tile; rules not be changed now. 39 40 Commissioner Torliatt - PUD Guidelines are important, restriction is reasonable, shouldn't 41 change. 42 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - We should uphold PUD requirements; commented that the 43 Guidelines limit diversity but noted that they are in place and are desired by the vast 44 majority of the residents. 45 Commissioner Rahman - Agrees with other Commissioners. 46 Commissioner Wick - Not to changes to PUD Guidelines from time -to -time. 47 The public hearing was closed. 48 1 9 A motion was made by Commissioner Torliatt and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to 0 deny the requested PUD Development Guidelines Amendment for Westridge Subdivision, 1 Units 2 and 3. 2 53 COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes 7 338 1 CHAIRPERSON THOMPSON: Yes 2 COMMISSIONER WICK:: No 3 COMMISSIONER STOIv1PE Yes 4 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes 5 COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes 6 IV. WASTEWATER FACILITIES PROJECT (jb). Public hearing on the Draft EIR for replacement and expansion of the City's Wastewater Management System and consideration of General Plan consistency and site planning recommendations for new storage and pipeline facilities. The staff report included presentations by Warren Salmons, Assistant City Manager, Jennifer Barrett, Senior Planner, and Harlan Glines, Jones and Stokes Associates, the environmental consultants. SPEAKERS: Warren Salmons: Assistant. 013X Manager reviewed the planning process to date, described . the privatization of the new treatment plant component as an innovative approach to the provision of wastewater management services. Petaluma would be the first community in California to fully privatize. The City has a team of consultant's assisting with the contract documents and RFP and a Citizen's Advisory Committee has been working with staff. Jennifer Barrett, Senior Planner reviewed the environmental review process and provided an overview of the project including the project objectives, facility requirements, design options and siting alternatives for the three main project components including treatment' facility, storage reservoir and pipelines for expanded irrigation. Harlan Glines Jones and Stokes Associates working with Brown and Caldwell on the environmental consultant team reviewed the Draft EIR findings for the treatment: facility and the storage facility - the two major project components. Commissioner Stompe asked how the City determined that the plant should be privatized. Would RAM continue to manage 'the irrigation and what role would the local utility commission "lay. Assistant City Manager Salmons responded to the Commissioners _ questions. The privatization of the plant was recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee after a detailed analysis of the relative costs of the traditional approach and the private approach. The City Council reviewed the report and adopted the Committee's recommendation. The agricultural management contract could continue with RAM, could be put out to bid or could be operated in- house. The City Council will need to make that decision. The local public utility commission is proposed, but, the role will need to be defined by the City Council. It is anticipated that the commission would oversee the private operations contract, could also advise on rate setting.and may also take a larger .role over other City utilities such as water service and public works. Chairman Thompson requested that other questions of the Commission be held so that the public hearing could begin. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Dan Patocchi property owner of the Patocchi Ranch where the Higgins Creek reservoir is proposed, objects to the taking of his property. The EIR does not fully evaluate the impact 339 1 to the landowner, the devaluation, of his ' property... Odors, views. and the new :facilities . 2 would reduce the value of his, remaining property. The density would be affected and use :" 3 restricted. The , City should treat the water to drinking level like Santa Rosa. He objected 4 to the easements buffers, pipelines and access road. If the City wants to build the reservoir 5 they should buy the whole ranch, not just a portion. The ranch is slated for development, 6 the City should recognize the value of the property. Great view sites. The City could buy 7 the whole ranch and put the oxidation ponds on the lower part instead of on Silacci's site 8 which i& zlong the scenic highway. Plant is too small just fits the City's buildout - it should 9 be oversized for the future.. He retains the right to object or litigate. There has been oil 10 exploration and crude oil in Higgins Creek. 11 Terrence Garvev taxpayer, suggested the City move quickly to pass the EIR - the city needs a new plant. Asked that the City consider a different procedure and let the public see response before sending forward. David Keller Petaluma River Council, said the EIR jumps back and forth between a program EIR and a project EIR. Doesn't consider environmental consequences of privatization. This deficiency will require recirculation of the document. Not equal level of discussion on all alternatives especially marsh storage or aquifer storage. No geotechnical data in the EIR. Population projections and plant sizing are for 20 years but the contract is for 30 years. The EIR does not account for the 10 years beyond the current 20 projections. The EIR suggests the differences between treatment alternatives are similar. 21 There are very significant .differences between treatment alternatives. I/I cost to transport 22 and treat are greater than infiltration control according to the City's 1985 Brown and 23 Caldwell study. City should evaluate reduction in flows first and affect on storage. 24 Incomplete data on toxicity, discharge requirements and receiving waters. Petaluma River 25 is a water quality limited segment. Table 5 -1 is unclear. Heavy metals not adequately �6 addressed for copper, lead, mercury and nickel. Water conservation specific costs and 7 program, not addressed. Tertiary treatment should be evaluated with potential for 8 expanded reuse in industrial, commercial and residential. Could get rid of 1 million gallons - 9 per day: in wetlands in the flats. Stated that there are some missing chunks and he will 30 return with other comments. 31 Steve Klausner representing Sonoma County Taxpayers Association whose interest is in 32 protecting the environment and ratepayers. Not sure ratepayers are protected by this 33 process., Reuse is a great deal of the cost. Separate treatment and public health from 34 reuse issues. How much does it cost and how much will they pay. Should look at per acre - 35 foot costs to irrigate, - cost of energy to pump uphill. A full range of options should be 36 evaluated including continued discharge. Wetlands creation if managed for habitat values 37 is acceptable. Water Quality in the river is related more to agricultural practices than the 38 City's discharge or irrigation practices. It's an exciting idea to have a private vendor but 39 must look at costs. This process is like the military buying a $100 ashtray. Petaluma needs 40 to look at costs first. 41 Renea Cardineaux property owner of a portion of the Wheat Creek site and irrigates with 42 City's water. Supports the size of the plant but opposes the economic effects on 43 landowners. Foolhardy to let the marketplace decide and take whatever is cheapest as if 44 impacts to owners are immaterial. If only 30 acres is taken it destroys the value of the rest 45 of the property. You can't say it looks pretty but you can't touch it. Nobody wants to be 46 near a wastewater pond. Need to look at the operation of what will happen over 15 to 30 47 years. The impacts of irrigation need to be updated, water quality, soil erosion and 48 buildup. The City should build lakes with tertiary water that people could use. Need a 49 landscape architect to review every aspect of this project, impact on visual will be major. - 0 Should review landscaping, grade changes to look more natural, fencing, signs, and 1 elevations to mitigate visual effects. May need to pay more for landowners cooperation. It 2 would cost more to go to court. Z 340 1 Jorg Friedrich owner of land required for Higgins" Creek reservoir, he will have waterfront 2 property. Concerns with sewer smells. If the City compensates the owners well; we will' 3 cooperate.. 4 Charles Matieri irrigates with City water and objects to fencing plan on Ellis Creek it will 5 disrupt his ranch operations. How much land will be taken? 6 7 The public hearing was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 24, 8 1995. 9 10 11 PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS 12 13. V. APPOINTMENT OF NEW COMMITTEE LIAISONS. 14 15 Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 24, 1995. 16 17 18 DEPARTMENT- REPORTS 19 20 VI. PROJECT STATUS: 21 22 Continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 24, 1995. 23 24 25 ADJOURNMENT 11:00 PM. 26 27 28 29 30 min110 / plan57 10