HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/13/1990REGULAR MEETING February 13, 1990
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA
Thee. Planning Commission encourages applicants or their representatives to be available at
the meeting to answer questions so that no agenda item need be deferred to a later date
0 due to a lack of pertinent information.
(� COMMISSIONERS: Present Bennett *, Libarle, Parkerson, Read, Tarr
Absent: Balshaw, Doyle
STAFF: Warren Salmons, Planning Director
Pamela Tuft, Principal Planner
Gary Broad, Associate Planner
Jenny Cavanagh, Assistant Planner
Teryl Lister, Assistant Planner
* Chairman
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of January 23, 1990 were approved as printed.
PUBLIC COMMENT: (15 minutes maximum).
The Planning 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.
SPEAKERS: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENT: None.
CORRESPONDENCE: Letters regarding Koby Dwelling Group, Clover Stornetta.
DIRECTOR's REPORT: Council goals feedback, Budget for 1990 -91
COMMISSIONER's REPORT: None.
APPEAL j STATEMENT: Within fourteen (14) calendar days following the date of a
decision of the Planning Commission, the decision may be appealed to the City Council by
the applicant or by any other interested party. If no appeal is made within that time, the
decision shall be final. An appeal shall be addressed to the Council in writing and shall be
1'
30
filed with the City Clerk. The appeal shall state specifically the grounds for the appeal and
the relief sought by the applicant.
Direction was given to Commissioners on the use of the new electronic voting machine.
Addition = italics
Deletion stfikeeu4
NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
I. YOUNG AMERICA HOMES, PARK PLACE V, RAINIER AVENUE' AT ACADIA
DRIVE,,AP NO. 136 - 111 -51, FILE NO. 3.403 6.962(tl).
1. Continued consideration of mitigated negative declaration.
2. Continued consideration of rezoning of 14,8 acres from PCD to PUD.
3. Continued consideration of PUD unit development plan.
4. Continued consideration of tentative map for 82 (revised) lot detached
single -family subdivision.
(Discussion only - action to be continued to allow renoticing: redesign of project
resulted in increase of unit yield.)
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Margie Guland - 308 Acadia Drive (neighbor) - Pleased that density has gone down.
Chris Craiker. AIA - Applicant Architect - Semi - custom project; described project,
materials,, etc.; has worked well with staff; recognizes need for renoticing.
The public hearing remains open and continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of
March 13, 1990.
Commission Discussion
Commissioner Parkerson Side garages very attractive - can there be more? Landscaping
adequate. — a
Commissioner Read This is a better project after redesign, worth the 30 -day wait.
Commissioner Bennett Consensus of Commission seems to be that this is 'a good project.
II. .FAIRWAY MEADOWS, DUFFEL COMPANY, AP NO. 17- 040 -50, FILE NO'S
3.399, 6,956(tl).
1. Continued consideration of mitigated negative declaration.
2. Continued consideration of rezone from .Agriculture (A) and Flood Plain
Combining (FPC) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and FPC.
3. Continued consideration of PUD unit development plan.
4. Continued consideration of tentative map for 41 lot detached single- family
subdivision.
(Applicant has requested continuance to allow completion of revised plans).
2
31
This item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 27, 1990.
NEW BUSINESS
III. KOBY, 901 "D" STREET, AP NO. 008-371-12, FILE NO. 1.661(gb).
1. Consideration of Categorical Exemption.
2. Consideration of conditional use permit for a dwelling group consisting of a
main residence and second unit.
(1 The public hearing was opened.
C
Q SPEAKERS:
Mark Sacks - 28 Brown Court - Concerns that carriage house may be a historic structure;
will additional units be allowed after this dwelling group designation is approved?
Arnold Gross - 853 D Street - Would like to be able to keep D Street rental -free; does not
want character of D Street to change.
Keith. Grimm - 921 D Street - resident for 25 years; concerns with changing character of
area; wants character maintained without rentals.
Alan Sandv - 919 D Street - new resident to Petaluma; does not want this project to be
approved because many other projects will follow; property rights are important, but will
this deteriorate the character of D Street?
Larry Martini - 910 D Street - Strongly opposes this dwelling group; too much traffic will be
generated units will be created.
Ilona Brandner - 999 D Street - opposed to this request; has owned property for 50 years;
too many rentals will be created; College and Mendocino Avenues in Santa Rosa
(overcrowding) started this way.
Glen Kobv - 901 D Street - Applicant - This unit is intended to be used by mother -in -law;
must be extensively repaired and remodeled; there are several other multi- family units
alrea dy on+ D Street.
Dick
Dick Lieb - 1 Bodega Avenue - Applicant's designer - many other multiple units in area;
sensitive conversion can be made; no neighborhood degradation will occur.
Georgia Cort - 830 D Street Wants D Street to be maintained as it is - with no rental
units.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Libarle - If this use is permitted, there will be a precedent.set.
Commissioner Read - Do applicants have any problems with conditions? (answer - no).
Commissioner Tarr - Project will be done well; all findings can be made given the size of
the lot - cannot oppose this project.
Commissioner Bennett - Staff report findings can be made; possibly a D Street Historic
District should be considered.
Commissioner Parkerson - Plenty of openspace on this property - adjacent neighbors
should not! be affected.
Commissioner Libarle - This area should probably have an overlay of "Historic District ".
The public hearing was closed.
3
32
A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to
approve a conditional use permit based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed
below:
COMMISSIONER. BALSHAW: Absent
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Absent
COM IISSIONER LIBARLE :Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR Yes
CHAIRMAN BENNE'IT. Yes
Findings
1. The non - conforming section of the zoning ordinance permits the use of a non-
conforming structure to be altered, provided the non- conforming structure itself is
not altered or added to within three feet of the side property fine.
2. Not all the dwelling units within a dwelling group must be located within 200 feet of
a public roadway.
3. The dwelling group, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent of
the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance.
4. The , . dwelling group, as conditioned,, will conform, to the requirements and intent,
goals,- policies and`objectives of the City of Petaluma General Plan.
5. This dwelling group as conditioned, does not constitute a nuisance nor is it
detrimental to the public welfare of the community.
6. This project, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the character of the
neighborhood.
7. This project is a CEQA Section 15303 Categorical Exemption, New Construction of
Small Structures.
Conditions
1. This use permit shall permit a dwelling group consisting of two units - -the existing
principal dwelling. and the converted carnage house. The project shall substantially—
conform to the attached site plan. No increase in the number of dwellings or
expansion of 'floor area for the approved two units shall be permitted without
approval of a use permit modification.
2. An.automatic fire sprinkler system, subject, to the approval of the Fire ;Marshal, shall
be provided. The riser for the sprinkler system shall be provided in the building
interior.
3. Access to the dwelling units shall be °provided by an access drive: a minimum twelve
(12) feet in width, subject to Community Development Department approval.
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for remodel of the carriage house, an
application shall be filed with the Community Development Department for the
4
33
designation of the carriage house, and existing residence as local historic structures.
A1icosts associated with said application shall be incurred by the project owner.
5. Remodel of the carriage house shall be subject to Historic and Cultural
Preservation Committee review and approval prior to the issuance of any building
permits. All addition and reconstruction shall be consistent with the structure's
original design. The work shall neither adversely affect the exterior architectural
characteristics or other features of the property, nor adversely affect its relationship
in 'terms of harmony and appropriateness with its surroundings, including
neighboring structures, nor adversely affect the character, or the historical,
architectural or aesthetic interest of the neighborhood. The design shall be
evaluated considering the preservation guidelines and standards developed for the
00 "X Street Historic District, pages 8 -13.
Q1 6. Plans submitted for Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee review shall
0 identify all proposed alterations to existing conditions. Plans shall include the
exterior appearance, color, texture of materials, and proposed architectural design
(� of the exterior of the structure. The location of all utilities and building elements
including gutters, downspouts, drainpipes, etc., shall be provided.
7. Plans submitted for Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee review shall
include elevations .showing existing grade /finished floor elevation and proposed
1 4de /finished floor elevation. Proposed finished floor elevation shall be eighteen
( inches or less from existing grade.
8. A landscape plan including type, size, spacing and number of plantings shall be
submitted for Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee review and approval.
The landscape plan shall address any proposed alteration to the 30 inch oak south of
the carriage house.
9. An =tion permit shall be obtained from City Engineering if any work occurs in
the right of way.
10. Separate gas and electric meters shall be installed for each dwelling to the
specifications of PG &E prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
11. A thirty (30) foot building setback line shall be 'provided from the top of bank on
both sides of the creek. The creek shall be retained in its natural state. The existing
vegetation along both sides of the creek shall be retained, unless approval is
received from the Community Development Department.
12. This project shall be responsible for the payment of special development fees
adopted by the Petaluma City Council including Storm Drainage Impact, Sewer and
Water Connection, School Facilities, Community Facilities Development and
Dwelling Construction.
-------------- =--------------------------------------------------------------
IV. CLOVER STORNETTA, 91 MADISON STREET, AP NO. 007 - 041 -01, FILE NO.
1.662(tl).
1. Consideration of mitigated negative declaration.
2. Consideration of conditional use permit for expansion of an existing dairy
processing facility to include a bottling plant addition.
The publics "hearing was opened.
5
SPEAKERS:
Gary Imm - 811 D Street - Applicant - Meetings were held with neighbors to try to work
out any problems that may occur in advance.
Dave Likens 81 Edith Madison Manor Homeowner's Association - Most concerns will
be met; would like more noise buffering at east side of project; existing noise is not really
objectionable.
Jack McBurton - 601 Edith - Concerns with existing noises - this may alleviate some
existing noises.
Commissioner Discussion
Commissioner Read Commendable that applicants met with neighbors prior to this
meeting.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Read and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to
issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the following findings:
COMMISSIONER BALSHAW: Absent
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Absent
COMMISSIONEWLIBARLE: Abstain
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
COMMISSIONER.TARR: Yes
CHAIRMAN 'BENNETT: Yes
Findings
1. The project, as conditionally approved does not have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a. fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- :sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or .animal community reduce the number or'
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods, of California history or prehistory.
2. The project, as conditionally approved, does not have the potential to achieve short -
term to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals.
3. The project, as conditionally approved, does not have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable.
4. The project, as conditionally approved, does not have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
5. The project is consistent with and further promotes the objectives, goals, and
policies of the General Plan.
6
35
A motion"was made by Commissioner Read and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to
approve a use permit based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed
below:
COMMISSIONER BALSHAW: Absent
COMMISSIONER `DOYLE: Absent
COMMISSIONER LIBARLE: Abstain
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
(� CHAIRMAN BENNETT: Yes
Findings
O
1. . The proposed use, subject to conditions of approval, conforms to the intent and
C) requirement of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan.
Q
2. The proposed use, subject to conditions of approval, will not constitute a nuisance
nor be detrimental to the public welfare of the community.
3. The proposed bottling plant addition will not result in a greater non - conformity of
existing setbacks or a usage less compatible with surrounding residential
development.
Conditions
1. All truck deliveries to the site utilizing the loading area located on Madison Street
shall be scheduled so as to prevent traffic obstruction or truck idling .on the street.
The roll-up service doors shall remain closed during all periods of
loading /unloading activity.
2. Storage and parking of company trucks and employee vehicles shall be restricted to
designated on -site parking areas. On- street parking shall be reserved for visitors.
3. The proposed parking and circulation plan shall be amended as necessary to ensure
that truck - turning movements can be accommodated and do not conflict with
designated parking areas. Plans submitted at time of application for building
permits shall reflect this requirement as well as overall on -site parking requirements
of 60 car spaces and 45 truck spaces. Compact spaces shall not constitute more than-
301% of the total requirement, and shall be more evenly dispersed.
4. The existing parking area situated in
the: railroad right -of -way on Lakeville Street shall be identified as to the specific
intended use (handicap parking and - freight unloading). The remainder shall be
replaced with landscape treatment, including street trees, shrubbery and
groundcovers sufficient to enhance the existing conditions and screen objectionable
views. Design shall meet staff satisfaction prior to issuance of building permits.
5. As proposed by the applicant, the existing storage building now located in the
Flo'odway shall be removed. Relocation of the building to a portion of the site
outside of the Floodway boundary shall be permitted as an alternative to
demolition. Removal (or relocation subject to staff review and approval) of the
storage building shall occur prior to occupancy, of the new addition.
7
36
6. Lighting, plans shall be submitted for staff review at time of application for building
permits. Plans shall address the need for on -site security as well as reduction of
glare.impacts to neighboring residential development.
7. No specific requirements for river enhancement or public access shall be imposed at
this time. However, the project proponents shall work with City staff toward
attainment of General Plan provisions for public access and river enhancement if
determined feasible following results of the Petaluma River Widening Study being
undertaken by the Army Corps of Engineers.
8. This project shall not be subject to imposition of new SPARC requirements unless
modifications to the plans made subsequent to SPARC review of January 25, 1990
substantially alter the appearance, of the building (from view of the public street) or
deviate substantially from the approved site and` landscape plans, as determined by
staff.
9. The following requirements of the City Engineer shall be observed:
a. Excavation permit must be obtained for all work in the public right-of-way.
b. All broken curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements located along project
frontage shall be repaired to Engineering staff specifications prior to
occupancy of the new facility.
C. A sewer use permit shall be obtained prior to occupancy of the new facility.
d. The property owner is advised that this lot lies within the study area for and
may be - impacted by the Petaluma River Widening Project.presently being
undertaken by the Army Corps of Engineers.
10. The following requirements of the Chief Building Inspector shall be met prior to
issuance of building permits:
a. Soils with expansion index greater than 20.requires special design foundation
per Uniform Building Code 2904(b).
b. Show site drainage and grading topography.
C. Indicate all utilities on site plan.
d. Verify utilities are adequate for building (i.e., size of water, electrical and gas
service and size of sewer).
e. Responsible party to sign plans.
f. Submit soils report to verify foundation design.
11. All requirements of the Fire Marshal, including sprinklering of the proposed
building, shall be met prior to occupancy.
12. The, following requirements of the Police Department shall be observed:
a. Lighting provided in the proposed parking areas should be - designed to
improve security and safety conditions during night shifts.
37
b. A plan for provision of 24 hour emergency access to the site must be
approved by Police and. Fire staff prior to occupancy of the new facility.
13. 1. All, applicable federal, state, and local standards relative to sewer usage and pre-
treatment of discharges shall be maintained. A monitoring system shall be
submitted for approval by Public Works, EOS, Engineering, and Planning staff prior
to commencement of the proposed bottling plant use.
14. This project shall be subject to conformance with all applicable Performance
(D Standards as specified under Section 22 -200 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance.
M 15. No.'additional sound mitigation measures shall be imposed at this time. However,
0 sound readings shall be taken by a noise consultant (costs to be borne by applicant)
Q prior to commencement of the new use to establish a baseline for currently accepted
(� noise levels. If at some future date, the Department of Community Development
receives valid complaints of unacceptable noise levels, the matter shall be referred
to the Planning Commission for consideration of additional operating requirements.
16. Any outdoor advertising signs shall be submitted for review and approval of SPARC
or the Community Development Department. All signs must conform to the Zoning
Ordinance and be compatible with. the building and surroundings.
17. This project shall be subject to imposition of all applicable development fees,
including Water and Sewer Connection, Community Facilities, and Storm Drainage
Impact fees.
18. Project proponent shall be responsible for payment, of Major Facilities Traffic
Mitigation fees if established prior to issuance of building permits.
V. BARELLA, ET AL, 501 LAKEVILLE, AP NO'S 007- 102 -03, 007 - 111 -01, 17 AND 51
THROUGH 57, FILE NO. 3.4050c).
1. Consideration of Negative Declaration.
2. Consideration of rezoning from Light Industrial (M -L) to Highway
Commercial (C -H), ten parcels located m the vicinity of Lakeville Street and
East Court.
The publicUaring was opened.
SPEAKERS: None.
The publichearing was closed.
A 'motion was made by Commissioner Libarle and. seconded by Commissioner Tarr to
recommend to the Council approval of rezoning from M -L to C -H based on the findings
listed below:
COMMISSIONER BALSHAW: Absent
9
COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Absent
COMMISSIONER LIBARLE: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
COMMISSIONER'TARR: Yes
CHAIRMAN'BENNETT: Yes
Findings:
1. That the proposed rezoning will make the zoning consistent with the .General Plan.
2. That state law and local policy call for consistency between zoning and General Plan
land use designations.
3. That public necessity, convenience, and general welfare permit the adoption of the
proposed amendment.
PLANNING. MATTERS
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1. Planning Commission recommended Goals 1990 -91.
2. Council 1990 -91 Goals.
By Commission concensus - Commissioner Parkerson will attend a seminar regarding Oak
tree preservation.
Chairman Bennett requested that .staff by given direction from Commission regarding D
Street Area - Community Development Director Salmons will being staff recommendations
and ideas back to Commission in memo form.
ADJOURNMENT: 9 :25 PM.
min0213 / pcom2
O