HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/12/1991N o
City Of Petaluma
Planning Commission Minutes
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY HALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT:
Thompson; ABSENT: Libarle*
November 12, 1991
7:00 P.M.
PETALUMA, CA
Bennett, Nelson, Parkerson* *, Rahman, Tarr,
STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
Bonne Gaebler, Associate, Planner
Dede Dolan, Assistant Planner
Hans Grunt, Planning Technician
* Chairman
* * Acting Chairman
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 29, 1991 WERE, APPROVED AS WRITTEN.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Sonoma State University Planning Seminar to be held December
7th.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Rahman reported that the River Forum
held at the Petaluma Yacht Club was an excellent meeting; Commissioner Parkerson
reported that City Council agreed to create a Tree Advisory Committee.
CORRESPONDENCE: Background information regarding New Life Group; Petition
regarding Twin Creeks
APPEAL. STATEMENT: Was read.
1
1
City of Petaluma
Planning Commission Minutes 11/12/91 7
OLD BUSINESS
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
I. PEP VALLEJO /PAYRAN /JEFFERSON STREETS, PORTION OF AP NUMBERS
007-104-1,3 AND 4; FILE NO'S GPA91002, PRE91025, REZ91007 ft).
1 Continued consideration of Rezoning of a portion of the project (elderly
housing) from Light Industrial to Planned Unit District. (Continued from
October 8, 1991).
i A' it t. �
1
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Dick Lieb - One Bodega (PEP Representative) - staff report looks good; discussions with
Fire Marshal today regarding some questions on the cul -de -sac design.
Commis'sioner Tarr - Is Petaluma doing more than most communities in low- income
elderly housing?
Bonne Gaebler - Definitely yes.
Commissioner Parkerson - If we vote for this item, are we approving the attached site plan.
Pamela Tuft - Basically, yes, through the PUD development plan.
Commissioner Parkerson - There should be thorough SPARC review; building design is too
industrial /institutional; design concept is wrong direction; need small personal garden
areas (private areas).
Bonne 'Gaebler - HUD has specific design guidelines which dictate a different kind of
project for PEP.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to
recommend the City Council rezoning a portion of the project site to Planned Unit District
based oii the following amended findings:
COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Absent
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
Findings:
1. The plan shall result in a more desirable use of land and a better physical
environment than would be possible under any single zoning district or combination
of zoning districts.
2. PUD District is proposed, on property which has a suitable relationship to one (1) or
more thoroughfares (Payran,.Jefferson, Vallejo Streets); and that said thoroughfares
are adequate to carry any additional traffic generated by the development.
3. The plans for the proposed development shall provide, as conditioned, a unified and
organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in
7
City of Petaluma
Planning Commission Minutes 11/12/91
relation to adjacent or nearby properties and that adequate landscaping and /or
screening will be included if necessary to insure compatibility.
4. The natural and scenic qualities of this urban site are protected, with adequate
available public and private spaces designated on the Unit Development Plan,
considering the specialized nature of the use.
5. The development of the subject property, as conditionally approved, will not be
detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City and will be
in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulation of the City of
Petaluma, and with the Petaluma General Plan.
6. The development of the subject property, as conditionally approved, shall continue
to provide affordable housing for elderly and handicapped persons, as understood in
the proposal for funds from the City of Petaluma's Housing Fund.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to
recommend to the City Council approval of the POD Development Plan subject to the
following amended conditions:
COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER. RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSOM Yes
CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Absent
COMMISSIONER'THOMPSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
Conditions
1. The project sponsor shall execute a binding agreement with the City of Petaluma,
insuring that the occupancy of all units shall be held in perpetuity (or as long as
possible as allowed by lenders) for low- income persons 62 years of age or older and
that a portion of the units shall be held iIn perpetuity for low- income persons
qualifying as handicapped and /or for persons 62 years of age or older.
2. The site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations are subject .to review and
conditional approval by SPARC. These plans, once approved by SPARC, shall
become the PUD -development plan for the project site. SPARC review shall
include, but not be limited to:
a. Location of handicap- accessible units near handicap parking spaces.
b. Adequacy of handicapped parking spaces to provide access by side - loading
ramp vehicles.
C. Site lighting.
d. Project Identification Sign.
e. Adequate privacy measures for units along Payran.
L Appropriate fencing, either new or replacement, to reduce noise impacts to
residents.
K
City of Petaluma
Planning Commission Minutes 11/12/91 9
g. Aesthetic enhancement of all buildings, if initial design is constrained by
HUD funding requirements.
L: Relationship of unit design with exterior living space; residential character and
scale; reduction of institutional appearance, compliance with Mixed -Use policies
such as compatibility with surrounding uses; small garden areas.
3. Mailboxes are subject to approval of the Post Office.
4. All improvements and grading shall comply with the Sonoma County Water
(� Agency's Design Criteria.
CY) 5. All requirements of the City Fire Marshal must be met to his satisfaction, as follows:
a. Provide fire extinguishers 2A rated ABC dry chemical type as required by
the Fire Marshal.
b. Provide smoke detectors in all units on separate circuits with visual alarm
device installed above or near main entry door.
C Provide KNOX box for key control located on building as required by the
Fire Marshal.
d. Provide turn - around as per City of Petaluma standards at end of street.
e Building shall be protected by an automatic fire extinguishing system as
required by Section 10.306A of the 1988 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code.
f. Permit required from Fire Marshal's office for sprinkler system alteration
prior to work being started. Two sets of plans are required.
ge Permit required for alarm system prior to installation.
h. Provide fire hydrants as required by the Fire Marshal's office. Three (3) fire
hydrant(s) required for project."
6. All requirements of the City Building Inspector must be met to his satisfaction, as
follows:
a. "Soils with expansion index greater than 20 requires special design
foundation per Uniform Building Code 2904(b).
b. All roofing shall be "B" rated or better per Ordinance No. 1744/1988.
C. Show site drainage and grading topography.
d Indicate all utilities on site plan.
e: Verify utilities are adequate for building (i.e., size of water, electrical and gas
service and size of sewer).
£ Submit soils report to verify foundation design.
4
10 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes 11/12/91
g. Indicate group occupancy, type of construction, square footage
h. The project shall meet State noise requirements for residential construction
to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Inspector. Sound insulating walls
and windows shall be installed on the west side of the building units which
parallel. Payran to provide protection for interior activities.
7. The project sponsor shall negotiate with Petaluma School District regarding school
facilities impact fees subject to Section 17.28 of the Petaluma. Municipal Code and
approved by the City Council, prior to issuance of any development permits.
8. The project sponsor shall be required to pay Community Facilities Development
Fees per Municipal Code Section 17.14, unless waived by the City Council;
9. The project sponsor shall comply with all applicable flood mitigation requirements
adopted by the City Council, as contained in Municipal Code Chapter 17.30 "Storm
Drainage Impact Fee ".
10. The project sponsor shall be required to pay Dwelling Construction Fee per
Municipal Code Section 17.12 unless waived by the City Council.
11. Traffic Mitigation Fee based on a per unit calculation shall be due prior to Certificate of
Occupancy for each unit.
12. Street frontage improvements along Payran and Vallejo Streets shall be provided,
subject to staff review and approval
NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
II. ARFSTEN, 13 RAYMOND HEIGHTS, AP NO. 008- 232 -17, FILE NO.
CUP9103OUkt).
1. Consideration of a conditional use permit to allow conversion of 392 sq. ft. of
an existing single - family dwelling to an accessory dwelling.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Commissioner Parkerson - Questions regarding on -site parking.
Kim Arfsten - Applicant - There is plenty of parking; conditions ok.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was. made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to
grant :a conditional use. permit based on the findings and subject to the following
conditions:
COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
5
City of Petaluma Planning. Commission Minutes 11/12/91 1�
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Absent
. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
:. COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
Findings:
1. The proposed accessory dwelling, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements
and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance.
2. The proposed accessory dwelling, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements
(0 and intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan.
c
( ;3. The proposed accessory dwelling will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to
the public welfare of the community.
4. This project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Section 15303, New Construction
of Small Structures.
Conditions
1. All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be complied with prior to or concurrently
with building permit issuance, including:
a; Provide fire suppression system at normal sources of ignition. These areas
are specifically at clothes dryers, kitchen stoves, furnaces, water heaters,
fireplaces and in attic areas at vents and chimneys for these appliances and
equipment.
I
b, Install smoke detector in bedroom area away from kitchen range.
J
2. Separate gas and electric meters shall be installed for the proposed accessory
dwelling to the specifications of PG &E prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
3. An uncovered parking space for the accessory dwelling shall be located to the right
of the existing 2 car garage, subject to staff review and approval. The parking space
shall be provided prior to final inspection of the proposed conversion.
4. This project shall be responsible for the payment of special development fees
adopted by the Petaluma City Council for Sewer and Water connection, School
Facilities, Dwelling Construction, and Traffic Mitigation.
III. NEW LIFE GROUP HOME, 520 GALLANT) STREET, AP NO. 006- 143 -23, FILE
ISO. CUP91031(hg).
11. Consideration of a categorical exemption.
2 Consideration of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a large
residential care facility for eight boys plus necessary staff.
The public hearing was opened.
G
12 City of Petaluma
SPEAKERS:
Planning Commission Minutes 11/12/91
Don Bennett asked for clarification of background of this use; who were petitions
prepared for? Is the Commission's only, concern with the expansion of the facility?
Pamela Tuft first saw petition last week which was circulated when the licensing and
creation of the group home was first proposed last year by Rev. Tharpe; checked with the
Chief of Police and to his knowledge, there have been no complaints about the operation
made to his department regarding noise or offensive language; staff is only suggesting an
increase from .6 to 8 residents instead of the allowable 12.
Fred Tarr - what was the reason for only 8 residents?
Pamela Tuft staff feels that is what is appropriate for an 8- bedroom home and is what has
been requested by the applicant; feels ratio of 4 -1 (8 residents to 2 caregivers) is
appropriate.
Don Bennett - is there currently a use permit for this site? (staff responded no).
Clark Thompson if the Planning Commission approves this use permit, and we get a.lot of
complaints and this use comes before us again, must the number of residents then drop to
6, or are they out altogether?
Pamela Tuft the regulation of 6 or less is not governed by the City; any further monitoring
would be. done by the Police Department and the Dept. of Social Services.
JoAnn Lane - 518 Galland - Petition was brought before the City Council in the summer
of 1990; have complained to Social Services in the past on operating characteristics (loud
music, staff change at 11:00 PM); distributed packet of material to each Commissioner
which included financial and Social Service information regarding the, group home.
Fred Tarr - do you have the phone number of the group home or must you go through
Social, Services to register a complaint?
JoAnn Layne per Social Services, is supposed to go through Rev. Tharpe's in Rohnert
Park.
Linda Rahman what was your purpose of distributing the Social Services information in
this packet?
JoAnn Layne - wanted people to understand how much of our tax payers dollar goes to this
home; .its also interesting information.
Fred Schram 5.15 Walnut - Problems with current operation; this type of business should
not be allowed at this site; Commission should have some compassion for neighbors; it was
his understanding that Rev. Tharpe would be on -site 4 -6 hours daily and that hasn't
happened.
Lynn Crossman - 515 Galland - six juveniles can probably be tolerated, but two more might
not be . ,a type of business wanted in this neighborhood; parking is a problem with noise
occurring during change of shift at 11:00 PM.
Joseph Coogen 5.16 Galland - Loud music when windows are open; no room for playing;
kids are, being locked up in house; too much bottled -up energy; no longer a quiet
neighborhood.
Rev. Tharpe - Applicant wished neighbors would come to him with concerns and
problems as they would have been stopped immediately no profanity or fighting is allowed;
there 'is great animosity in this room tonight directed toward himself and the kids; has not
been made aware ,of any problems; for close to 6 months spent. 24 hours a day with the kids;
loud music is coming from one of the workers and it will cease; residents and city staff are
welcome to visit home; has taught and coached in. Petaluma for many years.
Bonnie; Nelson has an elderly mother -in -law living in this neighborhood, hasn't seen any
problems; Rev. Tharpe is doing a greatjob and is a good neighbor.
Linda Rahman - do boys have cars (No); adding f boys will not add to traffic (No); is it
possible. for shift change to occur earlier than 11 PM ?; are boys lock in the house and
unable to leave?
Rev. Tharpe - there, will be. 3 caregivers for 8 boys, and they'are4 allowed to leave with
supervision; boys also have permission to use Boys and Girls Club.
7
.: �.+: 2a,✓ ...� ii_y <. r__.e.. .:.;� -.k:r .s: n.I ....: _ _ n.rs_I.. ..7 - ......� i .. -
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes 11/12/91
Clark Thompson - where do the boys attend school? Who is the property owner; have you
ever spoken with Mrs. Layne?
Rev. Tharpe - boys attend school at Ts Academy in Rohnert Park so are not in the
neighborhood during the day; property owner is Dale Kline; has spoken with Mrs. Layne by
phone.
Commissioner Tarr - regarding improvements to the house and landscaping - was anything
said last year? .would - you be reluctant to have a condition to paint the house?
Rev. Tharpe - no, I plan on the painting the house anyway, but it is a Victorian and
requires special treatment.
Linda Rahman - have you seen and agree with the conditions in the staff report?
Rev. Tharpe - Yes.
PamelaTuft - You stated 3 caregivers - do they rotate or are they there all the time?
CO Rev. T'harpe - They rotate.
C Pamelw Tuft - do you have any problem with conditions in the staff report which state that
at least' 2 caregivers will be at the home at all times and that the caregivers use the
driveway and garage for parking of their vehicles?
Rev. ThaMe - I have no problems with the conditions.
Ralph Ramirez - 618 Walnut - Rev. Tharpe seems to be over- extending himself with six
boys - how can he operate with eight? Can this home be monitored?
Pamela: Tuft - Rev. Tharpe has permission from a state license to operate with up to 6
residents; with 8, the City has the ability to monitor and work with Rev. Tharpe to insure
the operation is run according to conditions of approval and be more compatible with the
neighborhood.
Rev. Tharpe - does not want to go through this process again, just wants to help youth that
no one ;else wants; wants record to state there will be no more than 8 resident boys at the
home.
Pamela' Tuft - staff supports the use permit as an opportunity to work with Rev. Tharpe;
there is^ a real need in this community for this type of facility.
JoAnn Layne - Does not want cars parked in driveway - that would be closer to her
property and noisier than before.
Pamela' Tuft - Believes applicant /neighbors /staff can all work together.
Ralph Ramirez - 618 Walnut - Neighbors and applicant should talk about this before a vote
is taken.
JeremyEstrada - (living at the New Life Group Home) - We are not locked -up all day; the
neighbors are making a "big deal" about this.
Rodeo !VonBlodel - (living at the New Life Group Home) - Neighbors are making a "big
deal" when there really aren't any problems; more kids should be permitted to allow more
to be helped; kids sometimes get a little loud, but we are only teenagers - not overly loud.
The public hearing was closed.
Don Bennett - supports proposal; thinks noise is the main problem and. there needs to be a
good effort on both sides; intent is to resolve problems; neighbors have greater opportunity
to resolve this with City approval.
Fred Tarr - also supports the proposal; suggests Rev. Tharpe provide phone number of
home to neighbors; also important for boys themselves to police the noise.
Clark Thompson - also supports the expansion; feels Mrs. Layne and boys should get
together to resolve problems.
Linda Rahman - supports proposal; happy the boys are. present tonight to hear the
complaints; would not want the Rev. to lose the opportunity help the boys.
Ross Parkerson - the proposal would give residents some; local control; objective here is to
help kids that don't have anyone else; supports the proposal.
Bonnie' Nelson - in neighborhoods, concessions need to be made; neighbors may call her
personally with their concerns.
W1
14 City of Petaluma
Planning Commission Minutes 11/12/91
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to
find this project exempt from CEQA and to grant a conditional use permit based, on the
findings and subject to the amended conditions as follows:
COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Absent
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
CEOA Finding
1. The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301. The project involves
negligible expansion of use and no new structural additions.
Use Permit Findings
1. The proposed Large Residential Care Facility, as conditioned, will conform to the
requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance.
2. The proposed Large Residential Care Facility, as conditioned, will conform to the
requirements and intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan.
3. The proposed Large Residential Care Facility will not constitute a nuisance or be
detrimental to the public welfare of the community.
Use Permit Conditions
1. All safety and structural /mechanical roblems listed per the building survey
conducted on March 10, 1989 by the Chi Building Inspector and Fire Marshal, if
not already resolved, shall be corrected within 60 days following of this use
permit, subject to staff review and approval. The following is a list of the safety and
structural/mechanical problems that need to be corrected:
a. Old dumb- waiter (now a closet) should be. closed at ceiling line.
b. Kitchen exhaust fan to be rewired.
C. Exit from second floor to outside stair must open over platform (only 24"
platform now exists).
d. Basement:
Abandon all unused electrical wires.
Test all plumbing lines (not used for one year).
Test all, heating units and ducts (not used for one year).
Water heater to have proper pressure. relief valve and be piped to
ground.
E
- ...t.
ti
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes 11/12/91
Water heater to be vented properly.
Provide escape for water collecting in basement.
e ; Upper porch rail needs to be closed at bottom (not used for one year).
f: Fix all broken windows.
g. Fix separated leaders to gutters.
2. A schedule for visiting hours shall be submitted to staff for review and approval
CD within 20 days following approval of this use permit.
co 3. At least two (2) care facility staff members shall be at the home when resident boys
are present.
4. 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.
5. Residential care - givers shall park on Central Street adjacent to property.
IV. CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, 745 N. WEBSTER
STREET, AP NO. 006-441-13, FILE NO. CUP91027(jj).
1. Consideration of Negative Declaration.
2. Consideration of a conditional use permit. amendment for an addition of
2,074 square feet to an existing use.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Kaz Yamashi - Applicant's architect - 405 Primrose Road, Burlingame - New tower will be
lower than existing one because of grade; answered questions.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Thompson
to direct staff to prepare a negative declaration of environmental impact based on the
following finding:
COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Absent
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
10
W
16 - City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes 11/12/91
Finding
1. Planning staff finds on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that
there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment.
A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Bennett
to issue a use permit amendment based on the. findings and subject to the following
conditions:
COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETP: Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER,TARKERSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Absent
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
Fin_ dings
1. The proposed use, subject to the conditions of approval, conforms to the intent and
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan.
2. The proposed use will not constitute a nuisance nor be detrimental to the ublic
welfare of the community due to the conditions of approval. p
Conditions:
1. All activities conducted on the site shall comply with Zoning Ordinance and
Municipal Code performance standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.). In particular, any
noise disturbance created by church - activities will be required to b
through the City's Noise Performance Standards. q e mitigated
2. 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.
3. This project shall be subject to SPARC review prior to issuance of any development
permit with emphasis placed on preservation of existing trees, design revisions to avoid
clustering of compact parking spaces and landscaping within the parking areas
4. All requirements of the Fire Marshall shall be met, including:
a. Additions or alterations made to a building so that the combined building
exceeds 3,500 square feet in area shall be required to install and maintain an
automatic .sprinkler system throughout the addition or alteration,, as per
Ordinance 1799, adopted June 20, 1990, by the City 'of 'Petaluma. Due to the
total square feet of this building, we recommend that the entire building be
protected by an automatic sprinkler system.
b. Provide electrical conduit from post .indicator valve to alarm panel location
for tamper switch as underground is being'installed.
11
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes 11/12/91
c. Check valve in Fire Department connection to be installed above grade.
d_. Two -inch clearance shall be provided around fire sprinkler lateral and riser
at foundation and floor slab.
e. Provide exit lights over or near all required exits.
f; Provide emergency lighting in all public areas and at or near all required
exits.
g. All emergency lighting and exit lights shall have two separate sources of
c power as required in the Building Code.
C0 h. Provide fire extinguishers 2A rated ABC dry chemical type as required by the
Fire Marshal.
i. No extension cords. All equipment and appliances shall be direct plug -in.
j.; Provide metal or flame retardant plastic waste cans.
k. Provide KNOX box for key control located on building as required by the
Fire Marshal.
I. Provide key with tag indicating address and suite number for KNOX box.
m. All curtains, drapes, hangings and other decorative material shall be of flame
retardant material or treated with an approved fire retardant chemical by a
licensed State Fire Marshal applicator.
n. Provide panic hardware on all required exit doors.
o. Exiting: exit ways and exit doors shall conform to 1988 Edition of the
Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code.
V. 1,WN CREEKS, HYH ASSOCIATES, AP NO.'s 007-221-190,136-100-21,26,29,31,
32, 33, AND A PORTION OF 34, FILE NO.'s 3.381A, 11.871A, 6.917A(dd).
1: Commencement of consideration of the adequacy of the Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report for the Twin Creeks Tentative Map and
Planned Unit Development, a 44 -lot residential subdivision.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Iry Piotrkowski - 35 5th Street - Applicant representative; answered questions.
Michael, Hitchcock - Land planner, applicant representative.
Linda Gates - Landscape architect for project - Answered questions regarding landscape
design.
Maggie< Burton - 905 Holly Lane Supplemental EIR does not adequately cover flooding
problems; property has been under 4 -8 feet of water during worst flooding; area is
landlocked; Holly Lane floods; McKinley School does not have a parking lot - double
12
17
°°"-.� ^?m*rnaT."- .-- "r ^..�c7.eSS�zT_ x•.- ..--- •.._.�.- ...._._... .._-znn -- .- t._•- ,.._. -.-- ^r _.- _ - • _ _ - _ �___
18 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes 11/12/91
parking occurs when children are being dropped -off and picked -up; traffic is already too
heavy and children are being put in danger; EIR is not adequate; children in this housing
project will not go to McKinley School, they will be bused to another school; concerned
about traffic impacts on Washington.
Commissioner Tarr - Concerns as follows: 1) .Pollutants draining from street into river; 2)
insufficient on- street parking; impact of additional traffic on Ellis Street and how it will
affect those homes now adjacent to Ellis Street; 4) elevation differences between
Wilmington lots and new 'subdivision setbacks from houses; 5) visual impacts of too
many garages -more architectural variety; 6) needs more information on flooding; 7) school
impacts - 'would like representatives from both schools present; high. number of flag lots.
Commissioner Tarkerson - questions about school district boundaries; .need more diversity
in unit sizes; lots very small; need more variation in front yard setbacks; eliminate Lots 13-
17.
Commissioner Nelson - need a lot more information on flood mitigation; McKinley School
area is already too crowded.
Iry Piotikowski - McKinley School can accommodate more students because they have had
more previously; traffic is not a serious issue.
David Kelley Applicant Engineer - flood situation will be made. better, not worse by this
project:
The public hearing was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of December 10,
1991.
ADJOURNMENT 10:00 PM.
min 1112 /'pcmin -4
13
7. _ _. N