Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/08/1992323 6 7 8 9 10 W 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 7 8 29_ 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 0 2 3 54 Planning Commission Minutes REGULAR MEETING December 8, 1992 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA COMMISSIONERS: Bennett, Read, Parkerson *, Rahman, Tarr, Thompson, Torliatt STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director James McCann, Principal Planner Kurt. Yeiter, Principal Planner Dede Dolan, Assistant Planner * Chairman MINUTES OF November 24, 1992 were approved as printed. PUBLIC; COMMENT: (15 minutes maximum). The Commission will hear public comments only on matters over which they have jurisdiction. There will be no Commission discussion or action. The chairman will allot no more than five minutes to any individual. If more than three persons wish to speak, their time will be allotted so that the total amount of time allocated to this agenda item will be 15 minutes. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Several Commissioners, Councilmembers and staff attended Sonoma, State University Planning Seminar on December 5th. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Rahman requested that the need for a crosswalk at Chehalis and Sonoma Mountain Parkway be investigated. CORRESPONDENCE: Adobe Creek elevations from project architect; memo from Dede Dolan on requested amendments to recommended conditions of approval for Adobe Creek. APPEAL: STATEMENT: Was read. LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA Items recommended for consideration under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine in nature by staff and are recommended to be acted upon by a single motion by the Planning Commission at the beginning of the meeting with no further discussion. The Consent Agenda may include noticed public hearings (identified by " *P /H * "). Any item may, however, be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion in its normal order on the agenda by the applicant, a Commissioner, or an interested member of the public by a simple request prior to Commission action on the consent calendar. 324 Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1992 1 2 CONSENT AGENDA 3 4 I. *P /H* DICK LIEB, AEZR PET CLINIC, 579 NORTH MCDOWELL 5 BOULEVARD, APN 007- 501 -13; FILE CUP92037(dh). 6 7 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow .a 1,904 sq. ft. pet clinic in a Light - 8 Industrial (M -L) zoning district. The following actions are required: 9 1.0 a. Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 11 b. Conditional approval of Conditional Use Permit. 12 13 *This item was removed from the Consent Agenda by Commissioner Torliatt. 14 15 The public hearing was opened. 16 17 SPEAKERS: 18 19 Commissioner Torliatt raised a question as to landscaping design and maintenance with 20 concerns regarding potential animal litter problems. 21 22 The public hearing was closed. 23 24 A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman 25 to adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact based on the findings listed 26 below: 27 28 COMMISSIONER READ: Yes 29 COMMISSIONER.BENNETT: Yes 30-- - --.COMMISSIONER RAHMAN:- Yes 31 CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes 32 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes 33 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes 34 COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes 35 36 Findings: 37 1. . An Initial Study has been prepared and proper notice provided in accordance with 38 CEQA and local guidelines. 39 40 2. Based upon the Initial Study and any comments received, there is no substantial 41 evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. 42 43 3. The project does not have potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in_ the 44 Fish and Game code, either individually or cumulatively and is exempt from Fish. 45 and Game filing fees. 46 47 A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to 48 approve a Conditional Use Permit based on the findings and subject to the amended 49 conditions listed below: 50 51 COMMISSIONER READ: Yes 52 COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes 53 COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes 54 CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes I 2 Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1992 1 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes 5 Findings:, 6 7 1. The proposed veterinary clinic, as conditioned, will conform. to the requirements 8 and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. 9 10 2. The proposed veterinary clinic, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements 111 and intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan. C;) 3. The proposed veterinary clinic will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to V) the public welfare of the community. a Conditions 1. Business activities shall be limited to use of indoor areas. No outdoor storage of IF materials or waste or outdoor boarding of animals shall be permitted. 20 21 2. Business patrons shall be encouraged by the operator to transport animals in closed 22 containers or cages to prevent straying and injury of animals and nuisances to 23 neighboring properties. 24 25 3. The proposed commercial building shall be subject to Site Plan and Architectural Is Review (SPARC) and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. The following requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met: 29 30 a. Provide fire extinguishers 2A rated ABC dry chemical type as required by the 31 Fire Marshal. 32 33 b. Buildings 3,500 square feet and larger shall be protected by an automatic fire 34 extinguishing system as required by Section 10.306A of the 1988 Edition of 35 the Uniform Fire Code. 36 37 C. Permit required from Fire Marshal's office for sprinkler system alteration 38 prior to work being started. Two sets of plans are required. 39 40 d. Post address at or near main entry door - minimum two inch letters. 41 42 e. All compressed gas cylinders in service or in storage shall be adequately 43 secured to prevent falling or being knocked over (Section 74.107a of the 1988 44 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code). 45 46 f. Provide alarm system for sprinkler. Alarm system is to be monitored by an 47 approved central receiving station. 48 49 g. Provide KNOX box for key control located on building as required by the 0 Fire Marshal. 1 2 h. Provide key with tag indicating address and suite number for KNOX box. 3 325 3 32 6 Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1992 1 i. Provide electrical conduit from post indicator valve to alarm panel location 2 for tamper switch as underground is being installed. 3 4 j. Check valve in Fire Department connection to be installed above grade. 5 6 k. Two -inch clearance shall be provided around fire sprinkler lateral and riser 7 at foundation and floor slab. 8 9 1. Exiting: exit ways and exit doors shall conform to 1988 Edition of the 10 Uniform Fire Code and the 1991 Uniform Building Code. 11 12 5. The following requirements of the Engineering Department shall be met: 13 14 a. All work in public right -of -way will require an excavation permit from the 15 Public Works Department. - 16 17 b. Positive lot drainage to the street shall be required. 18 19 C. A site specific erosion control plan shall be submitted concurrent with the 20 grading and building permit. 21 22 6. Should substantive complaints be received regarding the operation of the use 23 and /or compliance with conditions of approval, this Conditional Use Permit shall be 24 brought back to the Planning Commission for modification to its conditions of 25 approval or for revocation. 26 27 7. Landscaping to be designed, monitored and maintained to address concerns of 28 potential animal litter problems. 29 3 -- - - 31 NEW BUSINESS 32 PUBLIC HEARINGS 33 34 II. J.G. ORBIS CORPORATION, ADOBE CREEK UNIT II, 1901 FRATES ROAD, 35 APN 017-05--17,18,22-24; FILE REZ92013(dd). 36 37 Request for an amendment to the approved Adobe Creek Planned Unit 38 Development Plan to allow the introduction of eight new models for the 68 unbuilt 39 lots in Unit II, Phase 1, to allow the construction of a model complex on 8 lots in 40 Unit II, Phase 2 area, to allow reductions in the side and rear yard setback 41 requirements, and to modify some of the lot lines between homes and between the 42 homes and the open space area. The following actions are required: 43 44 a. Determination that the existing certified EIR adequately addresses the 45 proposed changes and no modifications to the EIR or additional 46 environmental review need by completed. 47 b. Approval of an amendment to the existing PUD for Unit II. 48 C. Approval of an amendment to the Development Agreement. 49 50 The public hearing was opened. 51 52 SPEAKERS: 53 54 Dede Dolan presented the staff report. 9 Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1992 Tom Furrer - United Anglers (Casa Grande High School) - Very concerned with Phase 2 (not necessarily tonight's discussion regarding Phase 1); -very happy to work with developer on Adobes Creek restoration project; can work with developer to make project work for everyone. Commissioner Rahman - Supports United Anglers project; excited to see United Anglers 6 anxious to work with the developer. 7 Tim Heck :'- J.G. Orbis (project Construction Manager) the reason for requested changes 8 are marketing strategy, more streetscape variety, some single -story units, less mass). 9 Dan Hale. - Dahlin Group (project architect) - described planning concepts redesign; 10 explained ;how zero lot line easement works; wide variety of streetscape; emphasis placed k 1 on house, ;not garage; pedestrian access emphasized; windows facing adjoining homes are 1 all high for privacy; use of sideyards is emphasized. 1q) Commissioner Torliatt - Can fewer divided -light windows be used in front elevations? 1V) Dan Hale = Usually buyers request more divided -light windows. 1 kr Commissioner Parkerson This design is a tremendous change for the better on these 1� units. 1 Pamela Tuft - SPARC will discuss design elements such as divided light windows, etc.; 1 concerns that all windows (in front elevations) are divided light can be brought to SPARC's 1 attention. 20 Commissioner Rahman - Likes look of all units. 21 Commissioner Thompson - There is a creek restoration area where golf carts are going in 22 and out and trampling plants - this needs to be taken care of - would like to see the 23 monitoring report. 24 25 The public hearing was closed. Discussion 29 Commissioner Rahman - Problems with setbacks of less than 10 feet. 30 Commissioner Read -' Has density increased? (answer - no); has the building mass been 31 pared -down by reducing square footages (answer - yes); is this the same developer? How 32 will these units blend into the existing neighborhood? 33 Pamela Tuft - Staff believes a greatly varied streetscape will be achieved with these new 34 units. 35 Commissioner Read Owners will be responsible for sideyard landscaping, is that correct? 36 (answer - yes); How many turned - garage units will there be? 37 Commissioner Parkerson - During SPARC review, approximately 35% of units were 38 planned for side - turned entry garages. 39 Pamela Tuft - These will still` be high- amenity homes; rear yards are wide with open vistas 40 of golf course; existing homes are close on sideyards - some only 6'; landscaping along 41 street front will be done by developer - sideyards by homeowners. 42 Commissioner Read - Expressed concerns that homeowners will be required to landscape 43 sideyards. 44 Commissioner Parkerson - � Exciting design concept - much variety - better streetscene; 45 SPARC looked at preliminary review very carefully. 46 Commissioners Thompson and Torliatt - Concerns with (some) small sideyard setbacks. 47 Commissioner Torliatt - How many units will have rearyard setbacks less than Standards 48 required? Pamela Tuft - Only 2 (pie- shaped lots), but they have substantial sideyard setbacks. Commissioner Rahman - Mostly concerned with sideyard setbacks; 10 feet setbacks are too small. Commissioner Thompson - How will houses be painted when two -story homes are very close to each other? 327 5 328 Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1992 Dan Hale - There are different planes which will allow for maintenance without too much difficulty; all units are designed for as much privacy_ as possible. Commissioner Parkerson Given the relationship of design creativity, this is a good project; creates good living areas. Commissioner Bennett - Prior PUD had similar densities - not a radical idea - this is a much better way to go; creative and better use of space. Commissioner. Tarr - Visible setbacks from street are 10' minimum; if there is a noise problem, it will be heard no matter how close the houses are. Commissioner Parkerson - Good job in developing a very interesting, street - scene; Planning Commission should give developer a chance to create a different type of project. CommissionerTorliatt -Not real happy about setbacks; design is good. Commissioner Thompson - How many homes have 6' setbacks? Keith Christopherson Christopherson Homes - (brought in. to develop a more marketable project) lots are already fully improved; Duffel built all two -story homes and used less of the lot than this new concept; need single -story units to keep "loading" off of the street; looked at same privacy issues as Planning Commission has mentioned - brought in Dahlin Group because of other similar projects -they have designed in Northern California; lots of time spent determining relationship of units. Dede Dolan - Approximately 30% have some point less than 7 feet between units. A motion. was .made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to recommend that the City Council find that no additional environmental review need be conducted for the currently proposed amendments to the Adobe Creek" Planned Unit Development Plan based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes - idea&) - CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findin s: (Voting yes because of commitment to trying new 1. The changes to the Planned Unit Development plan and the development agreement do not require any revisions to the previously certified EIR due to' the involvement of. new significant environmental impacts not considered in the previously certified EIR. 2. There are no changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is bein& undertaken which will require revisions in the previously certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in the previously certified EIR. 3. There, is no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified which shows that the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed previously in the EIR, that any significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR, that the mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially lessen one or more significant effects - on the environment, or' that mitigation no f 1 ` A 7 C 20 21 22 23 24 25 oz_ 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 54 Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1992 measures or alternatives which were riot previously considered in the EIR would substantially lessen one or more significant effects on the environment. A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to the Unit II Development Plan based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions as follows: COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: No COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings 1. The previously certified EIR is adequate in relation to the currently proposed changes to the Adobe Creek PUD, Planned Unit. Development for Unit II, Phases 1 and 2, and no further environmental review is necessary per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 2. The development plan results in a more desirable use of the land and a better physical environment by improving the appearance of the front elevations. 329 3. The plan for the proposed development will be compatible with the rest of Adobe Creek because the proposal, as conditioned, does not involve any substantial changes to building setbacks or building heights and as found, presents a unified and organized. arrangement of buildings which are appropriate in relation to nearby properties. - - -- - - - - 4. The introduction of the new models will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interest of the City, and will be in keeping with the general intent and' spirit of the zoning regulations and General Plan of the City of Petaluma by improving diversity in the development by increasing the number of different models. 5. The proposed amendment to Unit II Phase 1 of the PUD does not involve any changes to the circulation pattern established in the original PUD. Conditions (Note: this list contains the conditions of the original approval for Unit II which are still applicable to the project (designated by "O "), amended conditions ( "A") and as well as conditions which apply to the current amendments ("N"). Staff is proposing that the Resolution approving this amendment supersede Resolution No. 89 -338 N.C.S. which approved ithe Original Unit II Development Plan): (A)1. The applicant shall submit written Planned Unit Development standards for the Unit II area to the Planning Department for review by SPARC prior to approval of any additional building permits. The written PUD Standards must consist of the following items: (N)a. The proposed mix of models as shown on the PUD plan dated October 27, 1992 or as revised through SPARC review. The written PUD standards may allow minor changes in this mix subject to Planning Director review if it can 7 330 Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1992 1 be determined. that the over-all mix and diversity of housing types throughout 2 Unit II, Phase I will not be affected. 3 4 (A)b. The identification of options and /or restrictions applicable to homeowners 5 for construction of structural additions or accessory structures. If permitted 6 these additions must be contained within the building envelope as defined' on 7 the: approved PUD plan. Maximum lot coverage for principle dwelling and 8 accessory _improvements equivalent to the defined building envelopes as 9 reflected on the approved PUD plan. 10 11 (A)c. The identification of options and /or restrictions applicable to homeowners 12 for construction of minor additions (i.e., decks, uncovered patios, spas,. 13 pools). 14 15 (A)d. A maximum residential building height of two and one half stories, not to - 16 exceed 32'. 17 18 e. Minimum setbacks as follows: 19 20 (0) Models 4,5,6 & 7: 21 22 Front: average 18' feet to garage door unless deemed by City Staff to require 23 more to provide adequate maneuvering area. 24 Rear: 12' minimum from rear -most plane of structure closest to rear 25 property line. 26 Side: 3' minimum to property line, 10' separation between adjacent 27 residences. 28 _ 29 '(N) Models N5, N6, N7 & N8: 31 Front: average 18' feet to garage door unless deemed by City Staff to require 32 more to provide adequate maneuvering area. 33 Rear: 20' average to rear property line. 34 Side: 3' minimum to property line, 10' separation between 35 residences. 36 37 (N) Models N1, N2, N3 & N4: 38 39 Front: average 18' feet to garage door unless deemed by City Staff to require 40 more to provide adequate maneuvering area. 41 42 Exceptions: A reduced garage door set back may be allowed 43 for Lots 62 & 79 subject to approval by SPARC provided that 44 not less than two parking spaces are provided for within the 45 driveway. One or two of these spaces may be compact if 46 necessary. 47 48 Rear: 12' minimum from rear -most plane of structure closest to rear 49 property line. 50 51 Exceptions: An encroachment of into the minimum rearyard 52 setback, may be permitted for Lots 69 and 72 . provided that 53 adequate outdoor living area is maintained, subject to approval 331 Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1992 by SPARC prior to approval of the building permits for these lots. Side: No minimum to property line; 6' separation between adjacent 5 residences. 6 7 (0)f. Provision requiring that the rebuilding and /or replacement of residential 8 structures, including fences, conform to the approved PUD plan. 9 10 (0)g. Prohibition of garage conversions. (0)h. Provision requiring that recreational vehicles be stored off -site, or within the garage. 1< (0)i. Provision allowing Home Occupations subject to any regulations of the Mr Petaluma Zoning Ordinance and any other restrictions proposed by the applicant subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. 19 (0)j. Parking enforcement plan subject to review and approval by City Staff. 20 21 (A)2. Allaspects of the proposed development plan are subject to review by SPARC prior 22 to approval of any building permits for the new models; including but not limited to: 23 architecture of the eight new models, p ublic and private landscaping (except the golf 24 course and private rear and ,side yards, hardscape surface treatments, private street identification signs, lighting fixtures, irrigation, public right -of -way pathways, project identification signs and fencing and the revised written PUD standards prior to the issuance of any building permits for these new models. Particular emphasis shall be given to: 29 30 a. Provision of substantial landscaping along project's perimeter, including Casa 31 Grande, Frates Road and Old Adobe Roads. 32 33 b. Interior streetscape with substantial street tree planting, in excess of 34 minimum standards typically seen, the intent being to make this Petaluma's 35 "show- place" housing project. 36 37 C. Provision of screen planting adjacent to residential fences which abut golf 38 course pathways. 39 40 d. Provision of at least four off - street parking spaces for each residential unit, 41 with adequate driveway width and length to afford safe maneuvering. 42 43 (N)3. As shown on the "Proposed Lot Line Adjustments" map, some house footprints 44 extend beyond the property lines. The applicant shall submit a revised site 45 development plan which corrects these situations showing the revised locations of 46 the: property lines, house locations in compliance with the minimum setback 47 requirements .listed above, and the location of the fences between lots for review by 48 SPARC prior the issuance of any building permits for these new models. (N)4. The project CC &R's must be modified, as they relate to Unit II, so as not to conflict or be more lenient than the conditions of project approval listed here. (N)5. The applicant shall submit the required applications and materials for the necessary 54 amendments to the existing yard use easements and Lot Line Adjustments on Lots M 332 Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1992 187 -190 and Lots 195 -198 in the Phase II model complex prior to the issuance of building permits on these lots. (N)6. The applicant shall submit a bond for all right -of -way improvements not installed in area in front of the model complex, subject to staff review and approval prior to issuance of building permits for the model complex. (A)7. All landscaping, irrigation systems, lighting, walls, fences, etc., within the public rights -of -way along Ely Boulevard South, Casa Grande Road and Frates Road, shall be maintained by the Homeowners Associations for Units I and II for at least one year (the 19.92 -93 fiscal year). ' If, after a period of one year, the City or the Homeowners Associations find it necessary or desirable to activate the already established Assessment District, the responsibility for maintenance will be transferred' to the Assessment District. Landscaping and irrigation within the public right-of-way shall be designed to standards acceptable to the City of Petaluma and . - shall be operated by time- controlled devices designed to be activated during non - daylight hours. (A)8. All landscaping, irrigation systems, lighting and other improvements within the private right-of-ways, within the project site, shall be maintained through a homeowners association or other method, subject to City Council review and approval concurrently with the approval of the Amended Final Map. (0)9. Stre.etscape landscaping and pathway treatment shall be extended beyond. City Limit lines to provide continuity of design, subject to SPARC review and approval. (A)10. Hours of outdoor construction activity on the Adobe Creek residential projects shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Saturday (non - holiday). No outdoor work shall be permitted on Sundays or holidays. (A)11. Public access and use of the course shall continue for a period of 50 years from the commencement of operations, unless reduced modified or extended by mutual consent of the City and J.G. Orbis or J.G. Orbis' successors in interest. Said obligations for public access shall run with the land and shall be binding on J.G. Orbis and its successors in interest and ownership. (N)12. The applicant must comply with the following conditions of the City Fire Prevention Bureau: For all Unit II: pFess} orr�} stex�et- eo��l- s ©trF�es- a €- ignitien: --= F�tes��rea� $t -clet es -d ry -lei hen- steves ftifnaees;- -,vateF- -heateF&, b -------- }ldixgs 3 feet end- largeF- shall- be- pFOteeed b}Faeutoeti - €tFe e- 4ngui-sling -systetn-- a&+equked- by- Sett}o+i- 40-.306A 4-4 -h 1 -9 88- -Edition 4 the- L-WfoFm -F4-r-e - -- E lf- 0 ---------- eF -FeE 3tFE�- FE?Fii- iii -- 3 S�iz11'fr C - -S 3f�FtlE�f'F -S s E Ti -$� E'Fa�ieA pFiec� -w ©Fk deg staid: -��uvd -sew af- plaes- a�- reguiFec a. Post address at or near main entry door - minimum two inch letters. 10 6 7 8 9 10 11 Planning Commission Minutes For the Model Complex: December 8, 1992 333 e:------- Afty4ui Wing eaast +ucted4R-- exee&&-et -4�Fo tie- pr-wat-e—r-e y-641nH be- fw- ovided- - 4r- e- suppres icy - sy&tein- in- ac-eoFdanee- with- N.F:F- A. -13-D ineltiding--- atie -- spies;-- garcges; -- t earns -- it --- combustible-- -€i4trr-es; batbFOOms - ©veF �5��}- ft:�andclesets� ©veF- 24�q. - €t. b. Permit required from Fire Marshal's office for sprinkler system alteration prior to work being started. Two sets of plans are required. g-- ----- 4Qenditiort- c. The model complex landscaping shall be redesigned to provide for emergency vehicle access subject to approval by the City Fire Marshal. 2 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 54 (N)13. The applicant shall comply with the. following conditions of the Engineering Department: a. The amended final map shall be submitted in standard Final Map format. This would include having signatures on the map of all existing owners and interested parties of the entire subdivision (Phase 1 only). b. The Development .Agreement and the recorded open space easement shall be amended prior to or concurrent with the approval of the amended Final Map by the City Council. C., The applicant must submit detailed grading plans for all lots to be re- configured and all lots with zero lot line construction for review and approval by city staff, prior to approval of the amended Final Map. d. The applicant must provide a detailed improvement plan for the eight unit model complex for review and approval by city staff prior to approval of the amended Final Map. Improvement plan shall include water and sewer main location with appropriate "cleanouts" and "blow offs ". Show how surface drainage is directed and collected in the parking lot area between the homes where street furniture will be. (N)14. The applicant must comply with the following condition of the City Public Works Department: Because lot lines are .being relocated at the front of the properties, already installed water meter and /or sanitary sewer laterals may be on adjacent parcels. The applicant must submit revised improvement plans, as necessary, showing existing water and sewer service locations as well as driveway locations prior to approval of the Final Map Amendment and the Lot Line adjustments. The plan must demonstrate how conflicts between already installed sewer and water meters and new lot lines will be resolved. Additional private easements may be necessary. (N)15. The applicant must comply with the following condition of the City Police Department: A locked gate and fence shall be installed at the front walk entrance of those units having, entries not directly visible from the street. Having a locked entrance gate (similar to a keyed pool gate) would allow the owners to better secure their residences. The gate would still allow patrol officers to look into the property 11 334 Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1992 so as to provide better security for the area. An intercom system at the gate would be convenient for the resident. (N)16. The applicant shall comply with the following condition of the City Building Division: Any part of a structure within 3' of a property line must be one hour rated and no openings will be allowed on these walls (Table 5A, 1991 UBC). (N)17. This Planned Unit Development approval is contingent upon approval by the City Council of the amendment to the Final Map for Unit II, Phase 1. (N)18. This PUD amendment approval is contingent upon approval of the amendment to the Development Agreement and to the open space easement by the City Council. (N)19. This PUD amendment approval is contingent upon administrative approval of all necessary Lot Line Adjustments showing the necessary changes. (N)20. All applicable conditions of the Tentative Map Approval, as listed in Resolution 89- 339 N.C.S., which are not amended by this action shall remain in force (0)21. All applicable conditions of the Planned Community Development (PCD) approval, as listed in Resolution 87 -115 N.C.S., which are not amended by this action shall remain in force A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to the Development Agreement based on the findings listed with the PUD Amendment action and to approve the necessary changes to the Open Space Area. COMMISSIONER READ: Yes . COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TORLIA.TT: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: No COMMISSIONER TA.RR: Yes III. DICK LIEB, FANTASTIC FOODS /DONAL MACHINE, 1250 NORTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD, APN 137 - 011 -19, FILE CUP920420m). Request to. authorize the establishment of manufacturing and wholesale businesses in the existing 145,000 ± sq. ft. building at 1250 N. McDowell Boulevard. The following actions are required: a. A determination of exemption from the requirements of CEQA. b. A Conditional Use Permit to authorize the establishment of manufacturing and wholesale uses at the site. C. A Conditional Use Permit to authorize outdoor storage on the site. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Jim McCann presented the staff report. 12 Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1992 1 Commissioner Torliatt - Why wasn't outdoor storage prohibited on original use permit? Are existing signs illegal now? Jim McCann - Yes, the one in the right -of -way of McDowell. Dick Lieb - Project Designer - Interesting project because of two diverse owners in one 5 building - use permit conditioned on these businesses owning the property jointly; storage 6 areas will be screened; adding 40 car spaces; maximum of 80 people per shift (combined). 7 John Denn - Donal ing Machine - Owners have been in area for five generations; wants to 8 keep business in Petaluma; there are representatives from four local companies who are 9 customers in the audience to speak in favor of this use permit; business expansion would 10 occur with additional shifts; would like Condition 3 revised to allow money to be deposited 11 into an escrow account. Commissioner Torliatt - Glad to see local people staying local. Commissioner Rahman - .Thanks Fantastic Foods for generous donations to COTS; feels FantasticsFoods is a wonderful business for Petaluma. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Torliatt to adopt. a determination of Exemption from further environmental review and to approve 20 a Conditional Use Permit to authorize the establishment of manufacturing and wholesale 21 uses and 'a Conditional Use Permit to authorize outdoor storage on the site based on the 22 findings and subject to the amended conditions as follows: 23 24 COMMISSIONER READ Yes 25 COMMISSIONER BENNETI': Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes 29 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes 30 COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes 31 32 Findings for Conditional Use Permit 33 34 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent 35 of `the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. 36 37 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent, 38 goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan. 39 40 3. The proposed project will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public 41 welfare of the community. 42 43 4. The circulation improvements proposed and the guarantees provided by the Truck 44 Management Plan will significantly reduce traffic conflicts and roadway 45 obstructions. Given these improvements, the project furthers the interest of safer 46 circulation to the benefit of the public health, safety and welfare. 47 48 Conditions For Conditional Use Permit 49 1. This project shall be subject to SPARC review with special emphasis on the following: a. A master landscape plan reflecting all areas to be planted. 54 13 336 Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1992 I b. Landscape screening shall be installed within the 25' front setback adjacent to the loading area located at the southwesterly portion of the building. C. A separate trash enclosure shall be provided on -site. 2. A sign permit shall be obtained from the Planning Department prior to erection of any additional signs. Existing illegal or non - conforming signs shall be brought into compliance with Zoning Ordinance Standards within 30 days of the effectiveness of this CUP. 3. A cash ,. bond, or other instrument of credit (e.g. capital improvement account), sufficient to cover costs of materials and installation for all required. site and landscape improvements, shall be pested-with provided to the Planning Department by the project proponents within sixty (60) days of the effectiveness of the CUP. 4. The following requirements of the Building Division shall be met: a. All tenant improvements will require a building permit. b. Building permit required for new fences. C. Handicap parking should be as close to main entrance as possible. d. Handicap persons should not pass behind anothers car. e. Handicap parking next to curb will obstruct side - loading vans. f. Handicap parking spaces must be dimensioned. 5. The following requirements of the Fire Marshall shall be met: - a. Expansion of Fantastic Foods driveway truck area will require the relocation of the fire sprinkler system detector check valve, the post indicator valve and fire department connection at south corner of site on McDowell Blvd. b. Gate hardware in fence along eastern side of Fantastic Foods shall accommodate exiting. C. All future walls shall accommodate sprinkler system coverage. 6. Should substantive complaints be received regarding the operation of the use and /or compliance with conditions of approval, this Conditional Use Permit shall be brought back to the Planning Commission for modification of its conditions of approval or for revocation. 7. The CUP shall not be effective until such time as the ownership of the property has changed to the applicants. Proof of said transfer shall be provided to the Planning Director within 30 days after transfer. 8. Landscape improvements shall be installed in conformance with the master landscape plan within 120 days of the effective date of this CUP. 9. A Truck Management Plan shall be prepared by the applicants for review and approval by the Planning Director and Traffic Engineer within 30 days of the 14 Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1992 337 15 effectiveness of the Conditional Use Permit. Said plan shall address all truck activities associated with Fantastic Foods and Donal Machine including arrival times, truck lengths, site access, etc: The plan shall require that truck arrivals to the site generally occur off -peak avoiding 7:30 AM - 9:00 AM and 4:30 PM - 6:00 PM 5 and that all truck access occur at the northerly driveway. 6 7 10. The applicants shall enter into an agreement provided by the City of Petaluma 8 guaranteeing their participation in future endeavors to provide right -of -way 9 improvements such as sidewalk and street lighting improvements along the property 10 frontage in conjunction with areawide improvements. 11 , W 11. Any change in occupancy on the site or significant change in the nature of the operation of Fantastic Foods or Donal Machine will be subject to further evaluation of parking and circulation needs and potentially implementing improvements at the discretion of the Planning Director. Findings for Conditional Use Permit For Outdoor Storage: 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent 20 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. 21 22 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent, 23 goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan. 24 25 3. The proposed project will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Conditions for Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Storage 9 30 1. .. Outdoor stora e for Donal Machine, Inc., shall be limited to the area on the rear 31 (northerly side of the building. 32 33 2. The height of stored material for Fantastic Foods on the southerly side of the 34 building shall not exceed the fence height of six (6) feet. 35 36 3. All material stored outdoors on the site shall be relocated to the approved outdoor 37 storage areas within thirty (30) days from the approval of the CUP. 38 39 4. A landscape area within a minimum width of three (3) feet shall be installed on the 40 southerly and easterly side of the Fantastic Foods outdoor storage area. 41 Appropriate screening shrubs which will reach a mature height of 3 to 5' shall be 42 installed within this planting area. Said landscaping shall be reflected on the master 43 landscape plan. 44 45 46 IV. ROBERT HUNTSBERRY, BANK OF PETALUMA, NORTHWEST CORNER OF 47 SOUTHPOINT BOULEVARD AND WOOD SORREL DRIVE, APN 137 - 170 -32 48 AND 137 - 180 -28; FILE REZ92014(hg). 49 0 Request to amend the Meadowpark office /commercial Planned Unit Development 1 (PUD) to include bank branches as permitted principal use, and to amend Phase 1 2 of the current development plan to accommodate a 2,160 sq. ft. temporary bank and 3 a 15,360 sq. ft. permanent bank. The permanent bank is to be built within five 54 years. 15 338 Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1992 a. Recommend adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. b. Recommend adoption of an amendment of the PUD zone to include bank branches as permitted principal use and amend Phase 1 of the development plan to accommodate both a 2,160 sq. ft. temporary bank and a 15,360 sq. ft. permanent bank facility to be built within five years. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Jim McCann - presented the staff report. Commissioner Parkerson - Questions regarding elimination of one of the three drive -up teller lanes: Jim McCann -That would be the permanent building (SPARC will review in any case). Commissioner Torliatt - Building will be temporary for up to five years? Jim McCann - Yes. Don Morse - Executive Vice President, Bank of Petaluma; no problems with any conditions.. Commissioner Torliatt - Spoke with a neighbor to the project who is excited to have a bank nearby. Commi Parkerson - Happy to see a bank developing on this site. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to recommend to the City Council the granting of a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the environmental findings and subject to the mitigations as follows: COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETI': Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the P.U.D. amendment as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An initial study has been conducted by this lead agency, which has evaluated the potential for this P.U.D. amendment to cause an adverse effect -- either individually or cumulatively -- on wildlife resources. For this purpose, wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological. communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability." (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code). 3. There is no evidence that the proposed P.U.D. amendment would have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources. Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1992 339 Mitigations 1. Increased surface water runoff and demand for increased public services from this project shall be mitigated through the re uire.ment to pay special development fees prior to issuance of a building permit and /or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 6 7 2. All exterior light fixtures shall be shown on plans subject to staff review and 8 approval. All lights attached to buildings shall provide a soft "wash" of light. against 9 the wall. All 10ts shall conform to City performance standards (e.g. no direct 10 glare, no poles in excess of 20 feet height, etc.) and shall compliment building 11 .architecture. 3. Visual aesthetics of the temporary bank facility shall be addressed through administrative SPARC review prior to issuance of a building and /or grading permit. Visual aesthetics of the permanent bank facility shall be reviewed by SPARC prior to issuance of a building and /or grading permit. 4. Construction activities shall comply with applicable zoning ordinance and municipal code performance standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.). 20 21 A motion,was made by Commissioner Torliatt and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to 22 recommend to the City Council approval of an amendment to Phase 1 of the Meadow Park 23 Office /Commercial PUD Zone and Development Plan based on the findings and subject 24 to the conditions as follows: 25 COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes 9 CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes 30 COMMISSIONER TORUATT: Yes 31 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes 32 COMMISSIONER TARR:'Yes 33 34 Findings for the P.U.D. zone and P.U.D. Development Plan 35 36 1. The amendment to include bank branches as principally permitted uses and 37 revisions to Phase 1 of the development plan as conditioned results in a more 38 desirable use of the land and a better physical environment than would be possible 39 under any single zoning district by providing for the development of a bank branch 40 with a unique style and configuration. 41 42 2. The circulation pattern of the proposed PUD has been dictated by the development 43 of'. adjacent neighborhood streets which includes McDowell Boulevard, Southpoint 44 Boulevard, and Wood Sorrel Drive, and has been designed to have a suitable 45 relationship to said circulation system. 46 47 3. The plan for the proposed development, as conditioned, presents a unified and 48 organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in 49 relation to nearby properties and adequate landscaping and screening will be reviewed by SPARC to insure compatibility. 4. There are no significant scenic qualities of the site that warrant specific site design 3 alterations to insure their preservation, but the plan will provide adequate available 54 public and private spaces designated on the Development Plan. 17 340 Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1992 5. The development of the temporary and permanent bank facilities in the manner proposed by the applicant, and as conditioned by the City will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interest of the City, and will be in keeping with the. general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations and General Plan of the City of Petaluma. Conditions for the P.U.D. zone and P.U.D. Development Plan Temporary Bank Facility 1. A temporary second driveway onto Wood Sorrel Drive shall be provided on the east side of the. temporary bank, subject to staff review and approval. Said driveway shall be removed at such time the permanent bank facility is constructed. 2. Street tree plantings along McDowell Blvd. shall be installed with the temporary bank° to have established, more mature trees in place at time of construction of the permanent. bank, subject to administrative SPARC review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. A landscape plan for the temporary bank shall be submitted with the administrative SPARC application prior to issuance of a building permit. Tree and shrub species shall be included on the plan and be consistent with the approved landscaping plan for the P.U.D. Unit Development Plan for Phases 2 and 3. 4. Signs shown on. the plan are not approved as part of this project. Sign permits must be obtained through the Building Division, and be designed to conform with the Zoning Ordinance subject to Planning staff review and approval. 5. Any outdoor advertising signs proposed in conjunction with the temporary bank shall be submitted concurrently with administrative SPARC review and approval. 6. The approval of the temporary bank facility provided herein -shall be limited to five (5) years. A request for time extension to operate the temporary bank facility beyond 5 years shall be subject to the Planning Director's review and approval. 7. Except as herein amended, all other applicable provisions of the Meadow Park office /commercial P.U.D. shall remain in full force and effect. Permanent Bank Facility 8. The site elan shall serve as a conceptual plan in preparing the P.U.D. Development Plan which shall be submitted for SPARC review to insure consistency with approved development plans for Phases 2 and 3 prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. For the permanent bank, revised setbacks shall be indicated on the P.U.D. Development Plan, subject to SPARC review and approval. 10. Plans submitted for SPARC review for the permanent bank facility shall include a reduction. of drive -up teller lanes to two to reduce the expanse of paving between the building and McDowell Blvd. North. In Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1992 341 1 11. Eliminate three of the parking spaces along Wood Sorrel Drive and .replace them with landscape islands, subject to administrative SPARC review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 12. A landscape plan for the permanent bank shall be submitted for SPARC review and 6 approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Tree and shrub species shall be 7 included on the plan and be consistent with the approved landscaping plan for the 8 P.U.D. Unit Development Plan for Phases 2 and 3. 9 10 13. The architecture of therpermanent bank building shall be designed to create a 11 distinct linkage between this building and the approved architecture of the Meadow Park PUD - Unit Development Plans for Phases 2 and 3. Additionally, the design should include elements which provide spatial integration of the buildings through linking courtyards, pathways, trellising within the parking lot planters, monument 1� signs, etc., subject to SPARC review and approval prior to issuance of a building 1 permit. TVP PLANNING MATTERS 20 21 V. CONSIDERATION OF 5 -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS (ky). 22 23 1. Find consistency of 5 -year Capital Improvement Programs (Circulation, 24 Sewer, and Water) with General Plan. 25 DISCUSSION: Kurt Yeit'er presented the staff report. Commissioner Bennett - Will the Street CIP come later? 30 Kurt Yeiter - Yes. 31 Commissioner Parkerson - Will there be a traffic light at 4th and D? 32 Tom Harji:s - Some accident history at 4th and D - worst movement is left turning; this 33 corner has been suggested to be a four -way stop location traffic signal would allow 34 coordination with the traffic signals on the Boulevard; current systems will be made to 35 work better. 36 37 A motion: was made by Commissioner Rahman and seconded by Commissioner Thompson 38 to find that the Circulation and Water 5 -year Capital Improvement Plans conform to, 39 further the interests of, and help implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the 40 General Plan. 41 42 COMMISSIONER READ: Yes 43 COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes 44 COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes 45 CHAIRMAN PARKERSOM Yes 46 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT Yes 47 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes 48 COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes 49 VI. CITY OF PETALUMA ZONING ORDINANCE REVISION am). (This was discussed as Item No. VII.) 19 342 Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1992 Discussion of the need for revision /update of the Zoning Ordinance and of review strategies. DISCUSSION: Jim McCann presented discussion on Zoning Ordinance revision strategies including m history of subcommittee established in 1986; staff recommends comprehensive revision; enforcement; should be pursued in a timely fashion; should a small committee be established. or should staff alone undertake revision since problem areas have been identified; recommends that manageable sections be brought to Planning Commission on a regular basis; performance zoning approach has been discussed - a combination of ridgid /Performance approaches will be explored. Commissioner Tarr - recommends a committee be formed to determine direction consistent with Planning Commission /Council wishes. Commissioner Bennett - Commissioners Read and Parkerson were on the sub- committee in 1987 - how did the process work? Commissioner Read - Work was never really started due to staff changes, etc. Commissioner Parkerson - Discussion encompassed a good body of work and reflected General Plan goals - we don't need to start from scratch. Planning Director Tuft - Will use existing files but would like direction from Planning Commission. Commissioner ' Parkerson - Performance zoning is a change in direction from previous discussions. Planning Director Tuft - A work session will be scheduled after the first of the year to discuss philosophy and direction. Commissioner Rahman - Immediate problems (enforcement) need to be on the top of the list. Planning Director Tuft - Yes, enforcement is already on the top of the list; entirely new enforcement measures are..being discussed. VII. CITY OF PETALUMA TRANSIT SYSTEM Or /jm). Discussion of the existing City transit system needs. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Bennett - Alarmed since Bay Area Air Quality Management District mandated changes in commuter habits; Petaluma needs to take a harder approach to mass transit; City of Petaluma Transit not geared to "get to work" transit; should start looking ahead to a different type of transit approach; long -range transit ideas are necessary.. Planning Director Tuft - This will /should be more fully discussed in 1993. Commissioner Parkerson - 'Mass transit /land use has changed; it does not work as in the past. Commissioner Rahman - Uses public transportation on a daily basis; transit must be realistic, must be flexible enough to be used by many people; employers should have flexibility on arrival times; can a community of our size support a transit system? Companies should encourage. carpools. Commissioner Bennett - We should plan ahead because BAAQMD mandates will come down; water taxi service could be explored. Commissioner Tarr - Electrici automobiles should be looked at. Jim Ryari - Transit Coordinator - In agreement with all items Commissioners have discussed; BAAQMD report /riles will be out in February; Planning and Transit need to get together on more items. 20 Planning' Commission Minutes December 8, 1992 343 �yy �7 6 7 8 9 10 11 20 21 22 23 24 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 �.7 0 VIII. NOVEMBER 24th MINUTES: CLARIFICATION REQUESTED ON THE COMMISSION MOTION AND VOTE REGARDING THE RIVER DEPENDENT USES GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (ky). a. Formal action to recommend designation of an east -bank river - industrial Specific Plan area. DISCUSSION: (Commissioners Tarr and Rahman abstained from discussion because they were not in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting of November 24.) Kurt Yeiter requested clarification regarding further action on creating a new Specific Plan area encompassing properties between "D" Street and US 101 (east side of the river), explained - that if Commission wanted to vote on this item, as they seemed prepared to do at the previous meeting, this was their chance. Commissioner Bennett emphasized that the area included in a Plan should encompass Petaluma's existing river - dependent industries. Matt Hudson - would like this recommendation presented (to City Council) with as much formality as the previous recommendations; the boundaries for the Plan area should be carefully drawn. Commissioner Read - We should look at the entire river all at once with specific focus on this area; could this be dove - tailed with S. Petaluma Study area? How will this be funded? A motion , was made by Commissioner Bennett and Seconded by Commissioner Torliatt to direct staff to pursue a General Plan Land Use Map Amendment to create a new Specific Plan area , encompassing properties between "D" Street and US 101, east side of the river, to encompass existing river - dependent industries. COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Abstain CHAIRMAN PARKERSON:. Yes COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Abstain LIAISON REPORTS 1. SPARC - None. 2. Tree Committee - Additional trees in Oakhill District; water bills will contain information relative to permit process for removal of Street Trees. 3. River Enhancement Committee - A status report was included in this packet; it is winding -up this month. PROTECT STATUS 1. Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan 21 "M MARAU 1 2 3 5 Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1992 ADJOURNMENT 10:15 PM. min1208 / pcmin8 f] 22