Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/09/1991Hffl \ V J O REGULAR MEETING JULY 9, 1991 C., CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. �[ CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA COMMISSIONERS: Present: Bennett, Libarle *, Parkerson, Rahman, Thompson, Nelson Absent: Tarr STAFF: Warren Salmons, Director Pamela Tuft, Principal Planner Teryl Phillips, Assistant Planner * Acting Chairman MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 25, 1991 were approved with -a correction to page 3. 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 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Item 1 on tonight's agenda has been withdrawn by applicant. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Councilmember Bonnie Nelson was welcomed to the Commission. CORRESPONDENCE: FoodMaker letter redistributed. APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read. 1 442 OLD BUSINESS CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING'S I. LEONARD JAY, COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES III, AP NO.'S 0086472 =04 AND A PORTION OF 008- 472 -06, FILE NO. 11.879(pt). 1. Setting of date for 'recommencement of public hearing on continued consideration of Draft Environmental 'Impact Report for proposed rezoning of project site from R- 1.6,500 to P.U.D. and Tentative Map for creation of 65 single - family dwelling lots. NOTE; As of 7/2/91, applicant has withdrawn application pending redesign of the project. The public hearing was closed. II. FOODMAKER, INC., JACK -IN -THE -BOX, 1401 McDOWELL BOULEVARD NORTH, AP NO. 047-360-01, FILE NO. , 1.693(tp). 1. Continued consideration of a conditional use permit to allow construction of a fast -food restaurant within Redwood Business Park II PCD Zoning District. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Alan Tilton - Traffic can be brought to acceptable levels with future (planned) mitigations; There will not be space for truck parking on- street. Commissioner Rahman - Did not understand why use. would not be consistent at this. location? Director Salmons - (in answer to above question) Because of hours of operation -This use is not designed' to be primarily for adjacent business park use - intersection location will attract other users. Commissioner Rahman - There are two hotels. in vicinity that will use this restaurant. Bill White - Applicant - (Redwood. Business Park Developer) All CC &R's will be strictly enforced; no access onto Old Redwood Highway; many people want less expensive lunch alternatives, presented petition. in favor of fast food restaurant signed by Redwood Business Park employees; General Plan policy to facilitate job growth needs "to encourage services for those jobs also; will not create "strip commercial!' area along Old Redwood Highway.. Redwood Business Park is pedestrian- oriented; . truck traffic (deliveries are mostly between 9AM. and 1.1AM. - no parking will b e allowed on street). Ross Parkerson - Is deli going into business park designed primarily for office use? Aren't the deli and proposed Jack-in-The-Box site in the same zoning district? Bill White - Movie theater provides a large volumeof business to cafe /deli and will provide business to Jack- In-The -Box. Bonnie Nelson - In context of entire area - auto mall, theater, etc., - the proposed use seems, consistent. Co mmissioner 'Libarle - Wouldn't two fast -food restaurants at this intersection be "over- kill"? 0 443 Bill White - No, because of people walking from close -by offices. Dick Lieb - 1 Bodega Avenue - (Consultant for proposed project) - The project across the street with approved fast-food restaurant will develop shortly; 40 -foot vans will deliver only 2 -3 times per week (not at peak hours); will fill need for lower - priced -food in this area. Joe Lobianco - Regional Construction Manager for Foodmaker (Applicant)'- not a standard Jack -In -The -Box building; happy with site layout. After discussion, it was decided that this - project - would 'probably not - be "'denied. Commission directed staff to distribute the traffic report for this project. The public hearing was continued to August 13 to allow staff to prepare a report. CD NEW BUSINESS: M PUBLIC HEARING O III. MARTIN, 523 OAK STREET, AP NO. 006 - 201 -36, FILE NO. CUP91016akt). U 1. Consideration of conditional use permit to allow an a Oak Street. ccessory dwelling at 523 The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: None. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded'by Commissioner Thomson to grant, a conditional use permit based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes CHAIRMAN TARR: Absent COMMISSIONER LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: 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 and intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma General. Plan. 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. 3 444 Conditions 1. All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be complied with,. including: An approved fire sprinkler system will be required for the accessory dwelling. 2. This project shall not require review by SPARC unless exterior changes, site design changes, or changes in parking configuration occur, subject to staff determination. 3. 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. 4. This project shall be responsible for the payment of special development fees adopted by the Petaluma City Council for Sewer and Water Connection, Community Facilities Development Fees, Dwelling Construction, School Facilities (Petaluma School District), and Traffic Mitigation. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING IV. CITY OF PETALUMA, ZONING ORDINANCE (ws). 1. Consideration of Negative Declaration 2. Continued consideration of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments. a Indemnification Agreements b Residential Uses in Commercial Zones c) Application and Processing Re quiremenis in the P.U.D. Zone d) Residential Fence Setback Requirements The public hearing was continued: SPEAKERS: None. The public hearing was closed. A motion was madet by Commissioner Rahman, and seconded by Commission_ er Parkerson to approve a Negative Declaration based on the findings in the staff report.. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT- Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes CHAIRMAN TARR;, Absent COMMISSIONER. LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: 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 number or restrict 4 - .. , ...... , ...,._.. �.,: c.----.-.,, ....- .�.._,- ..,- _— .- u.�._..,__. ._._:_... ^ fb: ?:` �i`'.:1<<'a:_Ea },�h.f9 \.r�;✓,.;:.kg k-1A_, nm • PH • 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. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to recommend adoption of Zoning Ordinance amendments as suggested by staff and incorporating the changes discussed by Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETF: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN. Yes CHAIRMAN TARR: Absent COMMISSIONER LIBARLE Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes 1. Add Section 1 -300 to Article I of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance (Title 21) ,to read as :follows: Section 1 -300 Indemnification of City. (a) At the time of submitting an application for a discretionary approval which is action in goon tartln. 1. Delete Section 10 -305, Office Commercial Zone: 5 M we 2. 3. 9 3- 0 :305.��i�gle= r�s }denttal =�rxit -pew Pagel: Add new Section 10 -405: Delete Section 13 -418, Highway Commercial Zone: 13 -41$: --------- R&-e -& -ab slime -nt -of a- single-pre-- e*i-&ti-Hg dead Add new Section 13 -418: 13 -418. R -M -H residential uses on floors above the ground floor. 1. 19A -201. In codifying a change some years ago to permit small family day care facilities in residential PUD's as required by the State, the numbering for that change was liven as Section 19A -203. Unfortunately, this fell within another section. Section 19A -203 should be removed and integrated with Section 19A-201, as follows: 19A -201 Any and all compatible land uses are permitted in a PUD District, provided such use or uses have been shown on the Unit Development Plan for the District and approved pursuant to this !chapter. All ,� ;a --�. -I AT TT ..:L_11 -- ____ *`- - - -11 r 1 .. .. 2. 19A- 202(B). Staff is recommending that the requirements for the topography map for'PUD be more explicit.. The Section will be amended to read as follows: 19A -202 B. A map showing the topography of the proposed PUD District, with existing and proposed contour intervals sufficient to'meet all the requirements of the City. Existing? trees. drainage courses, and other significant topographical .features shall be shown. 3. .19A-202(H). Staff is recommending that the materials of construction be called out on the .drawings submitted as part of a PUD package. Therefore, Section 19A -202 will be amended as follows: 19A -202 H. Professional prepared .elevations and /or perspective drawings of all major proposed structures. Such drawings need not be the result of final architectural: plans, but must be in adequate detail to enable the Commission to determine, within reasonable limits, the height, bulk, materials and arrangement of the proposed buildings and their general appearance. 4. As part of a PUD, applicants are required to prepare general development standards, that is, parking ratios, building heights, signage programs, and various no 1 447 , CD M 0 5. 31 other development standards. Typically, these have not been prepared in advance of `Planning Commission's consideration. Staff is suggesting that components of the various submittal requirements as laid out in Section 19A-202 be aggregated into development standards package which would part of the application submittal. The new section 19A- 202(I) would read: 1- 9A-245 m Bement -ems -© - a�soeia ion- with -t - n alifled-- �igltt -te assess- the- owr�er��� unit - €car- �ai�ten��ce -c�-o� - arry- edrnm ©rr- areas- a���eil }times shah- �e- esta�lisl}e�- and - man- ti�tteasl�- �ixt�ined: -- �'l�o-- �a�raget- c�pa�� -e� assoe }atla�r -sl }all- hav�- tl�e- ��gh- t-- te-1} err-€ �- �tri�- o-€- t�- owner- s- wl}o-- de €ault -�� -the pa�xcFr� -� - thei- r asse�eAt�: - - -- del}-- �ie�r� -- shy€ 1--- n ©t-- be-- �xxbaFd�ated - -tQ- -any enc��bFa�ees- otl�F- Aran- a = €ir�t deed -of test pi -€i- deeds£ test -ts made -ia gc�d-- €aitlr -aid €er- �aa -kie: -�-r� t�- reeflFda- lld�ref- �l3e�x� €�trbdivisiarr�ap -d� -i€ ne map is- �e�ssa�g; -iss ;.pane- e- Q € -fi- Est- brrildrr}g- perms € tl3e�evelepe�- shad- s�xhm }t -te and reeeei�e- a�pFaval- -ef - tie- Ei��tto�r�ey- �e-€ ollow�ng- �o-£�rr�eo-ts- r�latirrg: to -the pFOjee# wl}reh- aye -to-b� re erd �t- the -trrx� f-t e�eeordi�rg- © €4#e- €i+al- subdtvisi ©n map$ r -i£ sue h map��eee�sa�y;- at- tl�time- o€�i�ra��c� €- baildi- x�- �e��r�t� . ---- - -- �cr��f- a��o-xditians�= eoveFrants- a- nd�e�ictio-xs- pFaposed -fd� the- pF�}ee� 2 - - -- sample- e -ep"fT the- AFtieles- o€-1=nc- odor -atian -o €- the- o-ss©eiatif}- whielr-will asses - -the -- mai- nteeeffce- -� -- the-- , e&mmoe-- &Fe-as-- -an- -- €acuities - -if such assoeiat3d�r }s- t�- be- iaeoFpor- atecl: 19A -206 An application for a PUD Zone shall be accompanied by a development schedule and phasing -L indicating the elapsed time 7 Section 19A -205. Our PUD ordinance has some very specific language about requiring formation of homeowner associations for maintenance of common areas. Not all PUD's, of course, have common areas, and therefore this requirement is not an absolute necessity in every case. Staff recommends as follows: Section 19A -206. As part of the application package, staff would like to see project phasing similar to that which is now indicated on Tentative Maps. Therefore, we recommend amending Section 19A -206 to include requirements to show phasing lines. 448 and date on which construction is to begin, the anticipated rate of development,, and the anticipated.. date of completion. The development schedule, upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and when approved by the City Council, sh become a part of the Unit '.Developmen"t Plan and shall be adhered to by the owner of the property in the PUD District and his successors in interest. 7: Section 19A -505. This section generally outlines the process for development after a PUD has been established. This section, however, . is superfluous and goes into some detail about what already happens .as a matter of course. It doesn't need to be set out as an ordinance. Staff recommends deleting subparagraphs A, B and C' and simply stating in the body of Section 19A =505 that all development must be consistent with the approved PUD. Therefore, we suggest the following amendment: 19A -505 Following the adoption of the PUD District amendment and the approval of the Unit Development Plan, all development within the district shall be in substantial conformity with the said adopted Unit Development Plan or .such, modifications thereto as may have been approved. Sticli deve4opment -_�a - pr-eeee -as- €&Rows: A:------ should - s�rbdivision sf: arFCl -be- Bees are}- to- tie -ea-FFyint -e r Q €- the -�Frit - Developn}e� -Flan �l�e- a�le�At ���+- s�bFFHt -�n� the - -- City- - - subdivi&ion-- -map` -4n e�nfor- mit��tl}- t1�- �� }t= Develel�ment �- 1�an- fc�r- �ft�nFea �-;:------ n��c�r- �;- rnck�dtng- s- ite- gr- adi�g�- xougl= rgrg -ef �Feets -oF tree -nr -- brush- Femovnl -o�eF- thaw -that �eeessa�y- . €flF- sn�e�g, shall-- �e-- eo-rnmeneed-- ioF-- o-- e--- o- -tbe -- - -the pFOCe{ lnFe�- k�ted�x- &�bSeetioFr��$r -�- above 8. Section 19A -506. This section is permissive and allows the Planning Commission to initiate review of the zoning classification where proponents of the PUD district have not proceeded with development. This section. too is superfluous in that the Commission or the City Council may initiate rezoning proceedings for any area at any time if they feel an amendment is warranted. Therefore staff' recommends deletion of "Section 19A -506. ' 1)A-5 maw- r�rttnn- ©Fte - �F -n€ tee- estatit�eFFt-- ef- a- ��3`D= Bi�t��ct -by --die Ei�- C- o�.��i�: ---- 1�'•a }k�r� - -t ©- FFrak� -- such-- aPPli�a�ion = -F�y -e- apse• --die glan�ring- Eo-FF�rni�sio-x a - }Ft t� f� r w o € -tl7e- ixg- elassi€}eatien-o€ €he-- aroma aFtd -- to- - eedFr entl- e - tbe-- Eit}-- Efltrncil = the- -ap Fop-r-i-ate rea ©Fx�g� € t1= �e- d�tFrct: 9. Section 19A -510. This section requires any modification of an approved Unit Development Plan for PUD to be made by the 'City Council upon recommendation ,S.xz ,p.r,.,. , «_•t ,l,:ry+c . _..;*r_<i a�x.. ..,„q, -...., , - - .,w... „.,... ................,..... «—, .. 449 CO M 0 U Q of the Planning Commission. Staff would like to suggest that certain minor and inconsequential _changes be allowed administratively, that is by staff or perhaps with SPARC review only, so we would suggest amendment to the section as follows: 10. Section 19A -800 and 19A -900. Neither of these sections is, by practice, followed. A PUD zone exists once its been instituted. All development must, by the nature of this ordinance, be consistent with the existin PUD. As previously stated, if the Planning Commission or the City Council is not satisfied of the status of a PUD zone, Planning Commission or City Council may institute rezoning proceedings. 8ec4ion49A4" ------ 11 EL-07- ZONIN -, ADA4€NISTR -AT-OR {Direet©F -o€ C ©FF�tr�rit�- Develepmer}t- aid- 1?la�i -ag)- shall- c�pa�� the - -- actual - -- development-- a�et�m�lls�ed- -�n -- aid- -PIED Di�ict-witl}- tl�e- a�pFeved ��1:- Developme�t- 1?lao -axd sha- 11- Fepot his- €i- xdiFrgs- to- -t- hey- 1�Fx�ingC�Fr�Issidrr Sec -do*49A­900 ------- FOLLOW -i�R: - €f, -iF�� e�piFtior} af-� o- g� ing�onrFFdssion tl�e- ©dvae� �€ th��Fflpe� #�4n- �F� -€?U�} District- is- €ailiFrg to-- c -enfo-F lax the- Commission - may- mitiate— pr©eee- dings- t ©- Fexn ©ve -0 e 1?L-�D- Bist- 4et- desigxatiox- fro FFZ--t€ie- Zaxing- 4- ap -or -inay iFri- t�ato--} �FOeeeding�- €�F-- aFr- emeFrd- me�r3t - -t ©- �l�e- -fit DeeveIopment- Waa 4a- aFEler -- to-- ach4eve-- fe- ii ecessary edmpliaHc -e. Section 24 -500 OTHER EXCEPTIONS Solid fences, walls, and boundary hedges shall be no higher than six (6) feet except as specified in Sections 23 -305 and 24 -500.1 and may oecopy -afi -rFequired be located in side and rear yard areas or other open space as provided on the residential fence interfere witn site aistance requirements for auto traffic pr- evaded- tl}a € -stieh Fences, walls, or hedge shall not exceed a height of forty -two. (42) inches when located in a required front yards setback area. the- fequir-ed -setk back - area--aleng4-h,-side- stree4.4 ac- or- xeF- lo�$r�d- �k�r�g�ha��aF� amide- �rope;�- lire -ef $- Fe�ersed- eaFne� 1 ©f�heFe -i� alts - the €rt�at�a -�-o€ the- a�j ©i•Fring�ey -lat - as- s�ow�oa= 1'ak�l�4- ,-R�sidextia��'exce L&e'atiei An additional two (2) feet of screening at least fifty percent (50 %) open may be added on top of any six foot (6) tall fences, walls or boundary screening. An additional two feet (2) of fence height may be added to any permitted six foot (6) high fence located on the rear or side property line of a residential lot abutting a 9 19A -510 Modification of an approved Unit Development Plan shall be made only by resolution of the City Council. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council shall approve or deny the proposed modification. As determined by the.Director, modification which �s public, quasi - public facility or potentially noxious use (e.g., school, corporation yard, bicycle paths, pump house, etc.) determined by the Zoning Administrator. No obstruction in excess of forty -two inches (42 ") in height shall be located on a corner lot within a triangular area formed by the curb lines and their projection and a line connecting them at points thirty - five feet (35') from the intersection of the projected curb lines, except that trees shall be permitted. The foregoing provisions shall not be construed as to limit the height of retaining walls, except that front ward retaining walls shall not be more than eighteen inches (18 ") higher than the soil retained and shall not impair safe sight distance of street traffic. Fences in ­al- =eH6pt -R I- Distfiets shall be subject to architectural and site plan approval as to location, height, and material. ADJOURNMENT min0709 / plan20 10 A -. -.gym s.vr-- +. +...- ....•- ..+.... r -__