HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/14/1995355
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
�4
5
6
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
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING February 14, 1995
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7 :00 P.M.
CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
ROLL .CALL: Present: Feibusch, Rahman, Stompe, Thompson *, Torliatt, vonRaesfeld,
Wick
STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
Jim McCann, Principal Planner
Jane Thomson, Sr. Planning Technician
Chairman
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of January 24 (page 3) and January 31 (page 8) were
approved with corrections.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Stompe - Questions regarding Petaluma
Queen bridge openings - would like status on Factory Outlet signs and benches. Pamela
Tuft - will follow -up with developer on benches, most signs are up, banners are temporary.
Commissioner Rahman - Is a video tape of the Calthorpe Transportation Symposium
available? Pamela Tuft - will follow -up. Commissioner Thompson - Would like bridge
opening (for Petaluma Queen) update at next meeting; would like members of Citizens
Committee who attended "sewer school" to make a presentation to the Planning
Commission.
CORRESPONDENCE: Letter from Miller - Ronsheimer property owners regarding
Wastewater project; letter from Robert Oliker (attorney representing California Talent
Associates).
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
356
OLD BUSINESS
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
I. LEON BARLAS; BARLAS VARIANCE; 41 SHASTA AVENUE, AP NO. 019 -030 -006
Ukt).
Continued consideration of a Variance to allow an illegally constructed accessory
structure to encroach 3.27' into the required 4' -0" sideyard setback at 41 Shasta
Avenue.
(Continued from January 10th meeting.)
Senior Planning Technician Jane Thomson presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Leon Barlas - 195 Bailey Avenue - has owned property for 25 years; property has been a big
headache and financial burden; replaced dilapidated shack with a new, more attractive
building; ,rainy weather hampered progress (illegal construction) house improvements
should be in the next 3 -6 months; takes full responsibility for project problems; in. future
will be more actively involved in project.
Bonnie Diefendorf - Mogel Engineering (representing Mr. Barlas) - disagrees, that findings
cannot be made; unusual condition is drainage ditch and tree near carport; property
configuration is not square; not sure when rear unit was built; hardship finding can be
made (drainage ditch); other homes are less than 4 feet apart; has discussed removal of
carport /shop with neighbor; will work on drainage for neighbors; will build a-6 foot ,privacy
fence between neighbors; will look at redesign of footings for closed -in porch to lessen
impact to. redwood tree,
Commissioner Wick - Drainage questions.
Commissioner vonRaesfeld Questions regardin# need for a one -hour fire wall.
Commissioner Feibusch - Is there any way to achieve a 4 -foot setback without rebuilding?
Bonnie: Diefendorf - No.
Uvfas Barauskas 37 Shasta - problem with use, .of ;lot; many cars inoperable; 'want's to see
redwood tree ;saved - rebuild porch aesthetically; wants to see good solution for all; back
shed used as a dwelling now should be a utility shed, should not be used as living area.
Bonnie Diefendorf Rear unit being used as living area only temporarily during
construction, on main dwelling unit.
Principal Planner Jim McCann - Reiterated that findings for variance cannot be made;
drainage issues not germane to this issue; was not, aware that rear unit was being used. as a
living unit.
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Is there any discretionary clause to reduce side yard setbacks_ ?
Commissioner Rahman - When building was red - tagged, did work continue?
Jane Thomson - Yes.
Commissioner Thompson - Cannot make findings for variance approval.
Commissioner Rahman _ Cannot make findings.
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Cannot make findings; has safety concerns.
Commissioner Torliatt - Cannot make findings; site should be cleaned up.
Commissioner Wick - Cannot see any special circumstances, no hardship; existing drainage
ditch not a hardship.
The public hearing was closed.
7
357
A motion was made by Commissioner Rahman and seconded by Commissioner Wick to
deny the appeal of the variance request based on the inability of the Commission to sustain
the necessary findings.
COMMISSIONER STOMPE: Yes
COMMISSIONER FEIBUSCH: Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
CHAIRPERSON THOMPSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER WICK: Yes
COMMISSIONER TORLIATI': Yes
COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes
15
16 NEW BUSINESS
17 PUBLIC HEARING
18
19 II. LUCINDA HEIFNER; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUSPENSION; 334 and 334
20 1/2 BODEGA AVENUE; AP NO.006- 221- 057(jkt).
21
22 Consideration of an appeal by Lucinda Heifner of the Planning Director's
23 suspension of a Conditional Use Permit which authorized a two -unit dwelling group
24 at the Bodega Avenue site. Staff recommends denial of the appeal and revocation
25 of the Conditional Use Permit.
26
27 Senior Planning Technician Jane Thomson presented the staff report.
28
29 The public hearing was opened.
30
31 SPEAKERS:
32
33 General discussion regarding time frame of submittal of permit application and plan check
34 response.
35
36 Adele Schneidereit - 814 N. Webster - Distributed photos of site; referenced letter written
37 two years ago; trash, work on cars continue at the site; her fence was kicked -in by renter of
38 the site; use of property for second unit is detrimental to the health and welfare of the
39 neighborhood; very noisy; loud equipment (all night) cars coming and going at all times of
40 night; this needs to be stopped! neighbors very frustrated; foul language; no reason this
41 should continue.
42 Eric Swift - 330 Bodega - Surrounded by this property; police arrests quite often on this
43 site; toxic wastes; noise; porch built of lumber scraps, dangerous; 10 -15 people living in
44 unit; cars everywhere; front house has code violations; appliances stored outside; people
45 living in storage shed; lots of car repair in shed; Ms. Heifner made untrue statements at the
46 October 11, 1994 Planning Commission meeting; wants this to end.
47 MaTy Paula - 340 Bodega - has lived in her house for 26 years; all of above is true; driveway
48 to rear unit is partially on her property; very noisy; something must be done.
49 Jim Mellin - 810 Webster - Nothing has changed for over a year; has called Police many
50 times; way too much time spend on this by City agencies; not fair to him or his family; use
51 is detrimental to neighborhood; cannot sleep at night; his children cannot play in back yard
52 because of language /hazardous conditions.
3
358
Eric Swift Mr. Sparrow (another neighbor) - could not attend this meeting, but wanted his
concerns.regarding noise problems noted.
Princi al Planner Jim McCann Noted that Ms. Heifner's representative had been present
but let at approximately'8 :15 PM without- speaking:
Commissioner Stompe - Thanked neighbors for attending - she will note to City Council
that they were a strong voice against this situation continuing.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner vonRaesfeld and seconded by Commissioner
Torliatt to deny the appeal of the Planning Director's suspension of the Conditional Use
Permit and to revoke the Conditional Use Permit based on the following findings:
COMMISSIONER STOMPS: Yes
COMMISSIONER FEIBUSCH: Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
CHAIRPERSON THOMPSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER WICK: Yes
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes
Findings
1. The existing dwelling unit at 334 -1/2 Bodega Avenue does not comply with finding
#2 of the Conditional Use Permit approval from Resolution 88 -113, adopted
4/4/88, as the observed activities (junk /debris accumulation, noise generation,
vehicle repair) have been and continue to be a nuisance to the neighborhood.
2. The existing dwelling unit at 334 -1/2 Bodega .Avenue does not comply with
condition #1 of the Conditional Use Permit approval from Resolution 88 -113,
.adopted 4/4%88, as the dwelling unit does not have on -site fire protection as
required by this Resolution, and by Section 10.207(b) of the 1985 Fire Code.,
3. The existing dwelling units at 334 and 334 -1/2 Bodega Avenue do not comply with
condition #2 of the Conditional Use Permit approval from Resolution 88 -113,
adopted 4/4/88, as both structures are in violation of: (1) Petaluma Municipal Code
17.04.010 (1991 Uniform Building Codes adopted, Ordinance #1880); (2) Uniform
Code For Abatement Of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302(1), (stairway in 334
Bodega, and. stairway and loft in 334 -1/2 Bodega, do not meet code requirements);
Section 302(13), electrical and mechanical work (both 334 and 334 -1/2 Bodega are
in violation of electrical and mechanical codes); and (3) Uniform Housing „Code,
Chapter 10, substandard buildings, Section 1001(e), hazardous electrical wiring and
1001(g) hazardous mechanical equipment (hazardous electrical outlets. and
insufficient clearance between heater and combustible material in 334 -1/2 Bodega).
4. The existing dwelling unit 334 -1 /2 Bodega Avenue no longer conforms to the
requirements, intent, policies and programs of the Petaluma General Plan which
encourage the creation of second dwelling units on properties (Housing; Policy 4 and
Program 26). 'The General Plan also lids programs that: (1) regulate : land uses as
relate to auto dismantlin; (Conservation Program #23), (2) seek to. ,improve the
condition of the city's existing housing (Housing objective. .(g)), and (3) facilitate
compatibility between neighboring development (Housing Program 39): The
second dwelling unit no longer complies with these policies and programs.
4
359
1 5. The existing dwelling units at 334 and 334 -1/2 Bodega Avenue constitute a nuisance
2 as the intensification of use of the property by allowing a second dwelling unit has
3 required excessive police, fire, building, and planning enforcement as relates to
4 community health, safety and protection, and noise mitigation, and has also resulted
5 in noise and glare complaints for which the residents of the property have been cited
6 by the Police for disturbing the peace.
7
8 6. The existing dwelling unit at 334 -1/2 Bodega Avenue constitutes a nuisance as the
9 intensification of use of the property by allowing a second dwelling unit has resulted
10 in City departments receiving and processing an inordinate number of complaints,
11 regarding the condition of the structures, noise, vehicle repair, junk and debris.
12
13 7. The existing dwelling unit at 334 -1/2 Bode�a Avenue no longer complies with the
14 requirements and intent of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance Section 21 -300, General
15 Standards and Considerations Governing Conditional Uses, (attached) as the
16 activities observed since the establishment of the use (accumulation of junk and
17 debris, vehicle repair, noise, light and glare) exceed, that allowed, and intensify the
18 use of the property beyond that intended by the Zonin Ordinance. The existing
19 dwelling unit at 334 -1/2 Bodega does not comply with 1) Section 21- 301.3, as the
20 neighbors are not protected from noise, thereby allowing peace and quiet; (2)
21 Section 21- 303.1, as the activity level exceeds that normally associated with a
22 residential neighborhood; and (3) 21- 303.3, as there are no measures taken by the
23 owner or residents to control any off -site effects such as noise, dust, odors, light, or
24 glare.
t 5
6 8. The existing dwelling unit at 334 -1/2 Bodega Avenue does not comply with the
7 purpose and intent of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance Section 26 -500 (Conditional Use
8 Permits), as the purpose of the Conditional Use Permit is to insure the proper
29 integration of the use to the neighborhood by giving due regard to the nature and
30 condition of all adjacent uses. Resolution 88 -113, adopted 4/4/88, allowed the
31 intensification of use on the property, such that the second unit would be suitable as
32 conditioned with regard to noise, light, glare, and normal associated residential
33 activities.
34
35
36 DISCUSSION
37
38 III. BOB MANTHEY; CALIFORNIA HARDBODIES; ZONING ORDINANCE
39 INTERPRETATION (pt).
40
41 Consideration and discussion of interpretation that the California Hardbodies Show
42 falls within the Adult Entertainment provisions of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance.
43
44 Planning Director Pamela Tuft presented the staff report.
45
46 The Planning Commission viewed a promotional video supplied by the applicant.
47
48 DISCUSSION:
1 49
50 Bob Manthev - 215 Liberty Street - Owner of California Hardbodies - the City accepted
51 money for rent of Lucchesi Center for a rehearsal of California Hardbodies; performances
52 occur in many other cities in California and Nevada and no other City has classified this as
53 adult entertainment; does not believe there have been any complaints.
5
360
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Commissioner Stompe - Our job ,is to determine if this qualifies as adult entertainment as
defined'by our Zoning Ordinance; concerns with aspect of 'lap dancing "
Bob Manthev There is no sexual activity during. performances; certain anatomical parts
are exposed for only a brief period of time during each performance.
Commissioner Thompson - Requested Planning Director Tuft to read sections from
Zoning Ordinance regarding "specified sexual activities" and "specified anatomical areas ".
Bob Manthev - Toplessness is not a significant part of performance.
Planning- Director Tuft - Does not oppose this form of entertainment - we are here to
determine if this is "adult entertainment" as defined by the Zoning Ordinance.
Commissioner Rahman - Have any other cities interpreted this as adult entertainment?
Does Mn Manthey have a problem with 'this performance being classified as "adult
entertainment "?
Bob Manthev -Some cities
do not allow topless entertainment.
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - (to Planning Director Tuft) - Would you treat "adult
entertainment differently than_live entertainment?
Planning Director Tuft May be more discussion with Police Department regarding
security;. a Conditional Use Permit would be required at this location; could be initiated as
a minor Conditional Use Permit subject to public response.
Bob Manthev - Owner of Holidaze told him that a member of Planning staff indicated that
the Hardbodies performance could not be topless; the bowling alley has male strippers;
local video stores have adult videos available.
Planning Director Tuft - Defined difference in adult video store versus other adult
entertainment businesses (code defines square footage requirements).
Commissioner Stomye - It is clear that this is "adult - entertainment "; would like to see a text
amendment to remove the word "substantial" in definition.
Commissioner Rahman - Sees this as- "adult entertainment ".
Commissioner Wick - We need to be very careful if we remove words like "substantial ";
would like City Attorney to respond to Mr. Oliker's letter; policy and legal issue concerns.
Commissioner Fiebusch - Would like response from City Attorney before continuing..
Commissioner Torliatt - Will defer to City Attorney's opinion, but leaning toward this as
being "adult entertainment ".
Commissioner vonRaesfeld - This is a game of semantics; must be an adult to enter an
establishment where this is occurring; does not think this is something Planning
Commi Sion should be deciding.
Planning Director Tuft - Will ask City Attorney for a further opinion.
Discussion continued until written response is received from City Attorney.
IV. BICYCLE COMMITTEE.
Discussion of recent Council decision changing Bicycle Committee responsibility to
Planning Commission; Appointment of Commission representative to Bicycle
Committee.
Appointment: Commissioner Torliatt
DEPARTMENT REPORTS
V. PROJECT STATUS:
1
IN
361
1
3
4
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
- Country Club Estates 2a /3a - Tree Study Appeal - Continued to City Council
meeting of February 21.
- Alcoholic Beverage Establishments Ordinance Adoption and "grace period ".
- Zoning Ordinance Interpretation regarding Live Entertainment - Continued
to City Council meeting of February 21.
- Petaluma Queen outstanding SPARC application and staff action - Appeal
denied by City Council - letter was sent to operator.
- Taco Bell - Performance and compliance with conditions of approval -
Situation being monitored (lights, security).
ADJOURNMENT 9:30 PM.
min214 / plan58
7