Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/08/19951 2 City Of Petaluma 3 4 Planning Commission Minutes 5 6 REGULAR MEETING August 8, 1995 7 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. 8 CITY ;HALL PETALUMA, CA 9 10 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 11 12 ROLL CALL: Present: Barlas, Feibusch, Rahman, Thompson *, Torliatt, vonRaesfeld; 13 Absent. • Wick 14 15 STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director 16 , James McCann, Principal Planner 17 Teryl Phillips, Associate Planner 18 19 * Chairman 20 21 22 APPROVAL OF MINUTES? Minutes of July 25, 1995 were approved as printed 23 (Commissioner Barlas abstained.) 24 5 6 PUBLIC :;COMMENT: None. 7 28 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Wastewater Treatment. Plant DEIR distributed to Planning 29 Commission is also recognized as Appendix 2 of the Request For Proposals. 30 31 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None. 32 33 CORRESPONDENCE: Letter from Michael Downie regarding Magnolia Terrace; letter.. 34 from Planning Director Tuft to Michael Downie. regarding Magnolia Terrace; letter from 35 Maxilee and Lowell McNichol regarding Magnolia; Terrace; letter from Robert Oliker on 36 behalf of Chris and Sandra Jernstedt regarding Bettman project. 37 38 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read. 39 f 40 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda. 41 42 43 OLD BUSINESS 44 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 45 46 I. BET mAN' ACCESSORY DWELLING; THOMAS. MCCARVILLE, ON BEHALF 47 OF ALFRED' BETrmAN, 724 "I STREET; AP NO. 008 -222 -015 (dh). 8 9 Continued consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to reclassify an 0 existing 490 sq.ft. residence as an accessory dwelling so that a future primary 1 detached single- family residence can be constructed on the same lot in an R -1 -6,500 52 zoning district. 53 54 Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of July 25, 1995. 2 Principal Planner James McCann`presented'the staff report. 3 4 The continued public hearing was opened. 5 6 SPEAKERS: 7 8 Carol Whitmire - Representing neighbors (Jernstedt); investigated sewer. easement (there 9 is an easement - 19.42), easement and, sewer line cannot be relocated/changed without 10 agreement from all parties; UPC may 'restrict some design, how will water° be rounded ?; 11 applicant owns ,other properties in Sonoma County - assume this will a. for -sale or 12 income property unit; privacy not a consideration "for the applicant re �approv;al only 13 if larger unit is in front of lot; if .larger unit allowed, conditions : acknowledging sewer 14 easement need to be in place; SPARC review ,of second unit should be required. 15 Thomas 'McCarville - Project designer - requesting use permit to be-able to keep .existing 16 house as an accessory dwelling in front of lot resistance in neighborhood, does not want to 17 see change; called neighbors at beginning of project; none called back; called neighbors 18 again after last meeting received list of concerns,. finally met with neighbors (Jernstedt) 19 just yesterday; arguments have lots of holes; cannot see how this project could be 20 detrimental to neighborhood; concerns that house will be too tall, but most other :houses in 21 neighborhood are two -story and compatible square footages; providing enough parking 22 (per Planning Department requirements); neighbors are trying .to delay this project; site 23 drainage is not an. issue; issues of ' code compliance, open.space brought out 6y nei Mors 24 there are no problems; cannot move existing unit to rear. - economically i ;asible; 25 proposed. B design . is consistentwith.neighborhood. 26 Commissioner' arlas Willing and able to meet all conditions? 27 Thomas McCarville - Yes. 28 Mr. Jernstedt met with neighbors; made many compromises; applicant riot interested in 29 any suggestions made by neighborhood, proposed house not homeowner oriented, house 30 should be smaller scale to fit in. better with neighborhood. 31 Commissioner_ Rahman - Ability to provide water service to a new .residence does not 32 pertain to this. use permit issue. 33 Principal Planner McCann - Easement is a private (civil) matter, 'information indicates 34 easement exists. 35 Commissioner Ra'hman - Would SPARC review of larger unit be unusual? 36 Principal Planner McCann - Not too unusual, except order of building is reversed from 37 usual (accessory. dwelling will exist. and primary dwelling-will follow). 38 Commissioner Rahman - If smaller unit was not on lot'now, a larger house could be built in 39 the location proposed. 40 Commissioner Barlas - Cannot vote, since was not., sitting on ;Commission, 'but 41 philosophically; this would be , a very good in -fill project. 42 Commissioner_ Thompson - Would like to see a smaller second dwelling, but otherwise 43 projecHs' a good one: 44 Commissioner Rahman - Not willing to see a, limit put on size of a primary unit would 45 agree to SPARC review.: 46 Commissioner Feibuscli - Would like to see'SPARC review, but proposed size ok. 47 Commissioner Torlia 48 Commissioner vonRaesfeld Pro fill project. . . e s Good In ject hasn't changed „would like to `see.SPARC review with 49 emphasis on landscaping,, window placement, privacy concerns; fine-tuning and should 50 be done at SPARC: 51 Commissioner Torliatt - Encourages applicant to work closelywith SPARC' if this project is 52 approved; best thing for neighborhood: 53 54 The public hearing was closed. 55 2 I A motion was made by Commissioner Torliatt and seconded by Commissioner Fiebusch to find this ;request exempt from, �CEQA ;and to grant a Conditional Use Permit to allow the reclassification of an existing 490 sq ft:. residence as an accessory , dwelling so that a future primary detached single - family residence can be constructed based` on the findings and 5 subject to'the amended conditions "listed below: 6 7 COMMISSIONER BARLAS :'Abstain 8 COMMISSIONER FEIBUSCH: Yes 9 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes 10 CHAIRPERSON RAHMAN: Yes 11 COMMISSIONER WICK: Absent 12 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes 13 COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes 14 15 Findings 16 17 1. The. proposed 'reclassification of an existing unit as an accessory dwelling, as 18 conditioned, will conform to the requirements and 'intent of the Petaluma Zoning 19 Ordinance by meeting the pertaining to Accessory Dwellings (Section 20 24408) regarding allowable. area, parking, open space, etc. 21 22 2. The proposed reclassification of an existing unit as an accessory dwelling, as 23 conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent, oals and policies of the 24 Petaluma General Plan by furthering Housing program �23) which supports the 5 creation of second units on smaller lots with use permits. 6 3. The proposed reclassification of an existing unit as an accessory dwelling will not 8 constitute a nuisance ,or be detrimental to the ; public welfare of the community 29 because it is consistent with. the - development pattern of the neighborhood wherein 30 there are several other second units, adequate off- street parking, is provided and 31 potential access and drainage concerns are mitigated by the conditions of approval. 32 33 4. This project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Section 15303, new construction 34 and /or conversion of small structures. 35 36 Conditions 37 38 1. All requirements of the Chief Building Official shall be met, including: 39 40 a! Grading must be certified when completed to indicate .compliance with 41 approved plans and will be required for occupancy. 42 b.' Where ground slopes' greater than 1 on 10, foundation shall be stepped per 43 Uniform Building Code 2907(c). 44 c.,, 'Soils with expansion, index greater than 20 requires special design foundation 5 d_' per Uniform Building Code 2904(b). 4 All roofing shall be 'B" rated or better per Ordinance No. 1744/1988. 47 e.l Show`site drainage and grading topography. 4$ f. Indicate all utilities on site plan. 9 g. Responsible party to sign plans. 0 h.,! Submit soils report to verify foundation design.. 1 i. Plans must show compliance to 1991 UBC, UPC, UMC, and 1990 NEC. 2 Plans must also show compliance to current Title 24 Energy Code. 3 j.. Provide structural calculations for all non - conventional design items. 54 55 2. All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met, including: K a. An additional fire hydrant may be required if an existing' hydrant is more than 300 feet from the proposed new single- family dwelling: b Address locator sign is required to, - be posted . at . or, near the driveway entrance. Refle'ctorized numbers (minimum 4 inches) `are ,acceptable, the number must be resistant to weather and, fading: Location and desigg are to be approved by the .Fire Marshal's office., C. Post address at or near main entry door, a minimum of. 4 inch -'letters,,:c n both buildings. d. Residences constructed in excess of 150. feet- from a public way �md . an approved 20 foot roadway cannot be provided, shall be protected with fire suppression system in accordance with NFPA 13 -D. This includes the attic' spaces garages, bathrooms with combustible fixtures; bathrooms over 55 sq.ft. and closets over 24 sq.ft. or over 3 feet deep, e. In.:residental buildings Tess than 3,500' sq.ft.' in floor area, provide fire suppression system at:normal sources:of ignition. These areas are "specifically at clothes dryers, kitche stoves, furnaces, water heaters, fireplaces and ,in attic areas at vents and chimneys., f. All roof covering material shall have a, Class "B rating or better; °treated in accordance with the Uniform :Building Code standard 32:7 land City of Petaluma Ordinance 1744. g. All roof. covering material applied as exterior wall covering shall have a fire rating of Class 'B "., treated in,, accordance with. Uniform Fire Code 32.7 and City of Petaluma Ordinance 1744: 3. All requirements of the City Engineer shall be. met, including:. a. Easements (including the sewer .easement) shall, . be shown. on plans submitted at time of building permit, application: Replacement: of the' existing, 6" clay sewer pipe with 6" ABS or, relocation of the sewer service to the - adjacent residence .at 722 "1" Street is encouraged subject to a consensus between the affected property owners. b. Drainage shall be adequately :addressed on plans submitted _ at time of building'permit application. No'lot -to -lot drainage shall.be permitted„ 4. The architectural plans for the remodeling of the existing 490 sq., .ft. residence. (proposed accessory unit) shall be revised to incorporate the following, subject to SPARC st -a€€ review and approval at time of .building permit application and completed prior to issuance :of Certificate of Occupancy for the future ;primary residence: - a. A covered porch shall be. added to the .entry,, consistent; in design and materials, ..e.. porch posts, to the proposed future,pnmary residence. 5. The architectural . fans for the future primary residence shall, be revised to incorporate the following to addres& neighbors intrusion: to privacy concerns, subject to SPARC si-aff review and approval at time of building permit application with particular emphasis on privacy issues such as a., Window placement - second -story' bedroom windows on the south side shall have sill height raised. to 5 feet. b. Design compatibility with the neighborhood (massing, scale, materials, etc-.). C. Landscape screening. 4 1 6. Plans - submitted 'for construction, of. the, primary'residence shall reflect a solid 6 foot hi' ''fence vc *thin additional 2.feet of-lattice along the rear and side prope��ty line to Zoning Standards.. Fence shall be installed prior to occupancy of the primary dwelling. 5 6 7. Construction . activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and 7 Municipal Code.Performance standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.). 8 9 8. The construction of the future primary residence shall be. subject to the payment of 10 Special. Development Fees adopted by the Petaluma City Council for Sewer and 11 Water- Connection, Community Facilities Development, Storm Drainage Impact, 12 Dwelling Construction,, School Facilities and Traffic. Mitigation Fees. 13 14 9. If development permit for the future principal dwelling has not been issued within 15 12 months of this Use. Permit approval, the approval shall become void. A one -year 16 extension of the Use Permit approval may be granted by the Planning Director if 17 requested at least thirty days prior to the initial, twelve month expiration date. 18 19 10. The . applicants/developers defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or 20 any of its boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action 21 or proceeding against the City pits boards, commission agents; officers, or employees 22 to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project. when such claim or 23 action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and /or 24 local statutes.. The City shall promptly notify the applicants /developers of any such 5 claim, .action, or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing 6 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, 8 and the City defends the action in good faith. 29 30 31 II. NESS.CO LANDSCAPING CUP AMENDMENT; EDWARD NESSINGER, 855 NO. 32 MCDOWELL BLVD.; AP NO. 048 (dh). 33 34 Continued consideration of a request for an amendment to an existing Conditional 35 Use Permit to allow outdoor storage of landscaping materials in conjunction with a 36 wholesale business in an M -L Zoning District. 37 38 Continued from the Planning Commission Meetings of July 11, and July 25, 1995. 39 40 Principal Planner James McCann presented the staff report. 41 42 The continued�public hearing was opened. 43 44 SPEAKERS: 45 46 Commissioner Thompson Introduced o tions for landscaping in the staff report; previous 47 entitlements, afforded to property owner (1970, open storage) have expired, is that right? 48 . Principal': Planner McCann - Yes, the CUP approved by Sonoma County which authorized 1 9 open storage at this site has expired; 25 -foot setback required presents some difficultly 'for 0 storage /use of property because of triangular lot shape; 15 466t setback recommended by 1 staff or leave fence where 'it is and not allow parking /storage within 10 feet of .inside of '2 fence; recommended adding statement recognizing old Use Permit issued by County is no 53 longer valid. 54 Ed Nessinger - Applicant - new problems today, was told landscaping needed on either 55 side of gate, and everything would be ok; wasn't that all that was required? 5 1 Principal: Planner McCann, - Explained Commission direction at conch,ision last -meeting., 2 Ed Nessing�dr­ Understood all ihat *was, needed was` landscaping, on either side ofthe fence, 3 then there would not, be. any problems. 4 Commissioner Torliatt - Redd direction/requirements per minutes. 5 Ed Nessiriger - Didnot read staff report before tonight's meeong,'did,.not have dine, takes 6 care of business first, City mquirernents second; talked to Darcy Henry, Pl' y in the agrung 7 Dep artment, she only asked ,for landscapematerial, would only be Willing to move , stockpile 8 of bricks. 9 Commissioner vonkaesfeld - Required a precise site plan at:prev meeting 'to be sure 10 everyone understands what is proposed; ! looking for more information on plans;, cant see ''veeriparkin ete.,Iwiththe I plans. submitted still not.prepared to make 11 interre'lationsh'ip etw , - , , - 1g - I still - 12 an informed decision; this plan s not-provide any information on, to base a CUP 13 approval. 14 Ed Nessinger - On initial use permit, s u a drawing that showed everything; open 15 storage does not change nature I of oject; problems with 25-foot �setback, lot will be -much 16 less useful-, taken. useless piece of property and made it useful an_ d better ,looking with 17 landscaping; this isn't the; " good 'Ole boy network" that I was led to believe. 18 Comrissioner Rahman -:Do you sell any retail? 19 Ed Ness Not 100% wholesale (that's all' I'll say.). 20 Planning Tuft = Clarified conditions that 6dstffig landsca not have to be 21 removed but additional landscaping is` recommended; if th"muse as, now ' presented 22 were p . roposed in,March,, conditions required be very different; this wo be an 23 excellent - opportunity for applicant to, advertis e his business, by quality street front 24 -landscaping; etc.; -project has evolved through vari intensification time fdr Commission 25 to direct applicant lhrough� conditions proposed in staff r 'e ' o rt senior staff will personally 26 sit with' -Mr. . , I Nessinge . r to make it clear what the Cityvant��)reqlres_ 27 Commissioners Torliatt/Th'otril2scift - to Commissioner Rahman _ - Not anxious, ,continue this Item Mr. Nessinger need's to decide 29 'if'he can operate with conditions. 30 'Commissioner vonRaesfeld - If staff is comfortable that they can got additional 31 refinement/plans from applicant, then original motion 'from, last hearing still starid§ the 32 applicant must get, enough information to staff. 33 Commissioner Rahman - Can this be placed on consent for next meeting. 34 CommissioriervogRaesfeld - if fence: is pulled back; entry, landscaped sufficiently, but 35 sufficient,pl - ans (staff approved) 36 Commissio Thompson Wants fence back from street; would like, to review a typical 37 site plan for the use. 38 CommiW6Tier Torliatt, - Hesitates t 6 approve� this without a site plan because there has 39 already beemmi'scommunication between staff/Comm - issiori/Applicant. 40 Commissioner R;Ainan. - Would like senior stiff to ov this project to completion. 41 Planning t Director Tu ft Staff recommend's use of dense planting, to provide screening of 42 bunkers, etc. 43 Commissioner vonRaesfeld, - Are concrete pipes planted, with larste. trees, a possibility?*; 44 what about. the 'possibility of. bermirig and fence could come out with- any _fut ure 45 dev6lopnlent o - f the site,,.. 46 C ommissi oner Ffebusch - B-ottomline is that - we want more of a-,,setback. 47 Ed Nessin"e - Not opposed to staff recommended alternative "C" already in front 48 of fence, now you I want planting behind fence of narrowness property, with concrete curb narrowness 49 would not last very long; RCP (reinforced cbndf�'tg ) with large: trees sounds ok; 'wants I - .., ipe 50 only 5-foot sdtbdck area. 51 Commissioner 'vonRaesfbTd - 48" Aira./Y high concrete pipe 25 ft. on center, with 15 gallon. 52 trees to staff approval, plan. submitted within, 15 days of approval and - implemented withi'n' 53 30 days of :approval; typical standards for access, clarify Condition 'No. 2; keep first 54 sentence. of Q keep driveway entryJandscaping in coridition. 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 e 54 Commissioner Rahman Would like:. to go ahead with the motion with language clear enough to, provide clear direction to staff. Commissioner Fiebusch ' -. What, is setback °now? answer 5 . Commissioner Torliatt -. This project does not address traffic because of retail sales. Planning Director Tuft - Use Permit prohibits retail. sales. Commissioner Rahman Seconded vonRaesfeld motion after discussion withdrew second. Discussion regarding setback requirements. Commissioner Rahman - What type of setback is desired by Commission? Commissioner Thompson - Protected 10'foot setback from existing fence - return to staff; put on consent next meeting. Discussion - what will be allowed ;in setback - no parking, no storage. Commissioner Rahman - Suggests move back existing fence 5 7 . Commissioner Torliatt - Suggests move, fence back 10 feet from where it is now. Commissioner vonRaesfeld --25' setback would be standard. mmis i ner.Thom son Temporary use, can allow conditions which move toward closer compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Discussion Plan should include: 10' landscaped setback inside the fenced setback area to be protected from physical intrusion; precise plan of proposal to be submitted to staff, enhanced entry,. placement of trees, show maneuvering of vehicles for safety and to insure no backing onto McDowell; plan- brought back to Commission for information; status - update at next meeting. The continued public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner vonRaesfeld and* seconded by Commissioner Thompson to support project based on Condition 2C (modified) below - this motion was withdrawn. A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Feibusch to find this project exempt from CEQA and to grant a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow outdoor storage of landscaping materials including rock, topsoil, bark bricks and other similar materials used iii conjunction with a wholesale business at an existing site for Nessco Landscape Maintenance at 855 McDowell Blvd. based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed below: COMMISSIONER BARLAS: Abstain COMMISSIONER FEIBUSCH: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes CHAIRPERSON RAHMAN Yes COMMISSIONER WICK: Absent COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: No - keep original motion made at previous meeting. Findings 1. The open landscaping materials storage operation, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance because it will provide for appropriate setbacks along McDowell. Blvd., an arterial street, and landscaping has been provided in the landscape planter strip along McDowell Blvd. 2. The open landscaping materials storage operation, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent, goals and policies of the Petaluma General Plan by providing an economic activity that contributes to local employment and income. 7 IVK 3. The open landscaping .materials storage operation will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the - community"' because conditions addressing. aesthetic and operating, standards shall .be enforced'. 4. This project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA, pursuant to -Section 15301, which exempts the rninor alteration of an existing facility. Conditions 1. This CUP' Amendment approval is to .allow the outdoor, storage of lan.dscape materials to; be used in conjunction with a .landscape supply. wholesale: business. No retail sales shall be permitted ,at this site. Permitted hours of' operation pare Monday through Saturday,1 AM to 5 PM. 2. Detailed plans- for one iof the following frontagge treatments shall be submitted for staff review and approval within 15 days of this7 approval and plans shall be implemented within. 30 days' of this approval. Plans shall specify proposed ,plant materials, size, spacing and method of irrigation:, a. 'LI1G- 1GTriiG 11G1G11 L. :1y11111V i�rl� 1{i11r111L X111 K area €bad, aivea�at setback .from the street shall be maims gate. The driveway entry , shall' be Ian point for the project, or %b�loEated v� }tt�= ttie- ��- toet- ,setbae - � Via- the -side A.minimum 18 foot fence ined for the entry treatment and yard' 3scaped to create an. attractive .focal F ----- - =4�e- eft- rxg- cr}ain- try -wee- matt- t�ect -bacx ��- ao��i ©r�af= �= ree� -.� ©m Me�lowel�- ��rled ; - pFO�d�ig,- �,t- la�clseape �ln�� ��a �thx�� =�5 . €eet - ��= depth: -- l�edwood slat - vertu- l�se�t� -s�a11 � i�a- �e -e�aia �xk- fend- �o -e�- enter- �- sakd- €enc- e`:- �ddi�iona�lar�dsca }rig =5�a�1 �e•�li�t�4n. the-- i�e�e�sed- �la�t�r -- area- t$- rnclude- -stmt �Fees� `' - si�e - g1�rrt�d�S�eet- orrc� €e�; o� C. The existing five foot planter strip and existing chain. link fence along McDowell Boulevard shall remain as is. all- be- 40sta4ed e}r -feet- bebid- the -- existing--.€ erc- e eeetrr�g-- a- 4andsca-- plarrte: -- area Landscaping shall be planted in the area ten feet befind ,the existing fence, including trees of a minimum 15 gallon size, planted 25 feet on center, and -5 gallon shrubs. 3. All prior conditions of approval for the conditional use Permit allowing the equipment storage ,yard for Nessco Landscape Maintenance granted,. March 30, 1995, s hall remain in force except that 'CondItion #10 shall. be modified to read' '°I his Conditional Use Permit (CUP) authorizes the open., storage of company' vehicles, equipment and associated transporting trailers land. landscaping materials 'not `to be stored higher than the fence (six feet high)" 4. This use permit may be recalled to th'eTlanning 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. 8 1 5. This Conditional -Use permit shall be valid for a term of five years, subject to 2 renewal upon review by the Planning Commission Direr at end of that time 3 period. 4 5 6. The applicants /developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or 6 any of its boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action 7 or proceeding a &ainst the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or employees 8 to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the .project when such claim or 9 action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and /or 10 local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicants /developers of any such 11 claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing 12 contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of 13 any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees and costs, 14 and the City defends the action in good faith. 15 16 Z This Conditional Use Permit shall preempt the pre- existing permit granted by Sonoma 17 County in 1970, which shall hereinafter be null and void. 18 19 8. The applicant shall prepare a precise site plan reflecting the location of existing features 20 and proposed stored material for review and approval by the Planning Director within 21 fifteen days of the approval of this CUP. Said plan, upon approval, shall constitute the 22 approved site plan. Failure to submit said plan may constitute grounds for 23 commencement of revocation and /or abatement procedures. 24 5 6 III. AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE; CITY OF PETALUMA (pt). 7 8 Continued consideration of a request by the City of Petaluma to amend the Zoning 29 Ordinance to allow very limited "'trailblazer signs on public property. 30 31 This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of June 27, 1995. 32 33 Planning Director Pamela Tuft presented the staff report. 34 1 35 The public hearing was opened. 36 37 SPEAKERS: 38 39 COMMISSION DISCUSSION Questions regarding maintenance responsibility of 40 maintenance, SPARC to decide design, color, etc. 41 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Concerns with intended use. 42 Commissioner Torliatt - recommendations for SPARC - size of lettering (must be legible to 43 motorists); consider similar signs in place in other municipalities; need to consider bird 44 prevention devices? 45 46 The public hearing was closed. 47 48 A motion was made by Commissioner Torliatt and seconded by Commissioner Thompson 9 to recommend to the City Council approval of the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to 0 permit the establishment of trailblazer signs based on the proposed Zoning Ordinance 1 Section 21- 204.95 as amended: 2 53 COMMISSIONER BARLAS: Abstain 54 COMMISSIONER FEIBUSCH: Yes 55 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes E 1 CHAIRPERSON RAHMAN: Yes 2 COMMISSIONER WICK: Absent 3 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes 4 COMMI SSIONER vonRAESFELD; Yes 5 6 Section 21- 204.95 Trailblazer Sig__ns 7 8 A. Locations Permitted: Trailblazer identification and directional signs may be 9 installed only within the public right -of -way of arterial status roads or on 10 other public property. 11 12 B. Design of Signs: Trailblazer identification and direction sins shall conform 13 to the master sign design (historic street lamp) for such, signs and shall be 14 provided (at the cost of the applicant) with an underground utility connection 15 to the nearest City street light, as required by the Directors of Planning and 16 Engineering. Fof-publie-benebt. 17 18 C. The Planning Director shall insure that listed uses and locations are of a 19 regional importance or have a regional draw and provide a public bene fit. 20 The Planning Director will may refer questionable requests to the Planning 21 Commission for their determination of eligibility consideration will be on 22 Planning Commission. consent agenda.- €af -Ge sea- €of- appr�al 23 24 D. Approvals Necessary: No Trailblazer identification (light pole or attached 25 sign) shall be installed without first receiving administrative Site Plan and 26 Architectural Review approval. Placement of the lamp post shall also require 27 obteiA an encroachment permit prior to their installation. 28 29 30 NEW BUSINESS 31 PUBLIC HEARINGS 32 33 IV. MAGNOLIA TERRACE SUBDIVISION PUD, AMENDMENT; FRANK RIORDAN;. 34 431 MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND 860 CHERRY STREET; AP NO'S 006 - 012 -015, 35 020 AND 006 -402 -008 (tp). 36 37 Continued consideration of a request to amend the PUD Development Plan and 38 Zoning Standards for Magnolia Terrace Subdivision, to change the design intent 39 from custom home lot development to production housing. 40 41 Continued from the Planning Commission meeting of July 25, 1995. 42 43 Associate Planner Teryl Phillips presented the staff report - clarified that project 44 remains single- family detached project. 45 46 The continued public hearing was opened. 47 48 SPEAKERS: 49 50 Bonnie Diefendorf - Mogel Engineering, project engineer - discussed grading and drainage 51 issues - mete with_ neighbors regarding drainage; contacted Engineering Department for 52 clarification of maintenance of drainage ditches /culverts on south side of Cherry Street; 53 questions on Mitigation Measure lA - does this refer to grading for homes themselves or 54 grading sewer easements? 55 Associate Planner - grading within sewer easement would be acceptable. 10 1 Bonnie Diefendorf - SCWA requirements preclude use of sewer easements on Lots 1 and 10 for driveways. Todd Cowan - Cowan Associates, project architect - drainage problems possible on Lots 1 and 10 if garages are accessed from sewer easement path; Lot 6 grading - can work with 5 City; foundations can be stepped a little more to minimize grading; custom homes did not 6 "pencil out" on this project; can work with SPARC on design, porches can be expanded, 7 wrapped, garages are all in front but have been softened; will probably sell for mid to 8 upper $200's; colors intermixed, does not like to mix roof materials; fence details can be 9 worked. out at SPARC; siding treatments - need clarification through SPARC - no 10 problems with design elements, can work with SPARC - no problem; feels that side entry 11 garage requirement has been met. 12 Commissioner Barlas - Does not like all front entry garages - this is a missed opportunity; 13 does understand drainage concerns; does not like configuration of lots; questioned 14 marketability of those units with paved easements in private yard areas. 15 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Garage dominated architecture is prevalent in this 16 subdivision; staff conditions dealing, with architecture may not be stringent enough, needs 17 much more design improvement /effort. 18 Commissioner Thompson - This is a beautiful site, but redesign of the homes is necessary; 19 preliminary SPARC may be advantageous for project. 20 Dorothy Tan ug_ay - 858 CherryStreet - (signed sheet) - Drainage concerns; perimeter 21 fence is ;not on - property line, would like fence placed on property line; privacy concerns - 22 home proposed on Lot 4 is only 10 feet from property line, 2 -story home would infringe on 23 privacy, :;Lot 4 should be' redesigned with living area in front of house, not rear as now 24 proposed. �5 Gilbert Dias - 848 Cherry Street - All concerns have been answered, but has concerns with drainage - drainage needs to be .improved if this project is built; grading should be minimized; setback concerns have also been addressed. t8 Frank Riordan developer - Lots are generous, but shaped oddly; would like to be treated 29 fairly regarding design modifications; garage treatments have already been softened; (gave 30 pictorial; examples of other projects recently built'. in City of Petaluma); 11 very separate 31 looking elevations; have already done a lot to soften garage treatments. 32 Commissioner Barlas - Wants to avoid garage and driveway at front of house; what if a 33 couple of the lots were eliminated? 34 Frank Riordan - Project would not work; trying to work with what has already been 35 approved without redoing the whole project. 36 Nathan Bachanan - Broker, ReMax Realty = Can't fit garages /driveways on these size lots 37 around the back; houses will be unaffordable /unsellable. 38 Dorothy' Tan�uay - 858 Cherry - Consider safe walkway for children to get to Cherry Valley 39 School. 40 Commissioner Rahman - Concerned with privacy to existing adjacent house 41 (setbacks /design) for Lot 4. 42 43 The public hearing was continued to allow Preliminary SPARC review (August 24) for 44 design direction and return to. Planning Commission on September 12, 1995. 45 46 47 V. MEADOW PARK PUD REZONING; McBAIL COMPANY; 801 WOOD SORREL 48 DRIVE; AP NO'S 137 - 170 -032 AND 137- 180 -058; FILE 0180 (REZ 06- 95)(hg). 9 0 Consideration of a request to rezone a 3.16 acre site from Meadow Park Office 1 Complex PUD to Administrative and Professional Office (C -O). 2 53 Principal Planner James McCann presented the staff report. 54 55 The public hearing was opened. 11 SPEAKERS: 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 None. The public hearing was closed. A motion was, made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner vonRaesfeld to. recommend to the City Council that the proposed zoning amendment is exempt from CEQA and to approve the rezone from. , Meadow Park Office Complex Planned Unit District (PUD) to Administrative and Professional Office District (C -O) based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER BARLAS: Yes COMMISSIONER FEIBUSCH: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes CHAIRPERSON RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER WICK: Absent COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes Findings for Rezoning 1. The proposed rezoning from Meadow Park Office Complex Planned Unit District (PUD) to Administrative and.:Professional Office District (C -0) is consistent with the Office land use designation provided for the site on the General Plan Land Use Map because it retains and provides for office related uses called for within Office designations in the General Plan text.. 2. Public necessity, convenience and general welfare of the City of Petaluma clearly permit the adoption of the proposed rezoning because it will facilitate more appropriate use of the land. - 3. The proposed rezoning will retain and as an ap ropriate transition in land use from N. McDowell Boulevard to the homes in the Park subdivision to the east. COMMISSION BUSINESS VI. APPOINTMENT OF SPARC LIAISON. Commissioner Thompson will attend this week's meeting if Commissioner vonFaesfeld, cannot attend - this item will be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 22,1995. ADJOURNMENT 10:40 PM. minO808 / plan62 12