HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/10/1991CD
a)
0
U
Q
11
CITY OF PETALUMA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING September 10, 1991
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA
COMMISSIONERS: Bennett, Libarle *, Nelson (left meeting after Item 1), Parkerson,
Rahman,larr, Thompson,
STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Principal Planner
Teryl Phillips, Assistant Planner
* Chairman
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 27, 1991 MEETING - Minutes were approved as
written.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Mr. Tim Connor - 302 9th Street - Quoted Section 26 -202 of the Zoning Ordinance - stated
that his appeal of an administrative decision-'by the Zoning Administrator should have been
on this agenda; requested notice and scheduling of appeal for next Planning Commission
meeting.
Pamela Tuft - Noted that calendar was already full for this meeting when appeal was
received appeal is calendared for September 24, 1991 Planning Commission meeting.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Conflict of Interest Standards
COMMIS'SIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Bennett - Would-like an updated Street
Tree List created.
TeUl Phillips Assistant Planner- - Responded: -that a proposed list is being developed - - it
will be brought to the October 8 Planning Commission meeting for consideration.
CORRESPONDENCE: Letter regarding status of Fantastic Foods (CUP).
APPEAL; STATEMENT: Was read.
City of Petaluma
4 8 4Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 1991
OLD - BUSINESS
CONTINUED PLANNING MATTER
I. SHELL, 4990 PETALUMA BOULEVARD NORTH, AP NO. 007412 -09 (jkt).
(Continued from the Planning Comm
ommission meeting of August 13, 1991).
1. Continued consideration of an appeal of an administrative decision to deny a
building permit for revision to a non- conforming sign.
(This public hearing was closed at the August 13, 1991 Planning Commission meeting.)
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
(Commissioner Parkerson reviewed tape of the August 13 meeting.)
Commissioner Parkerson - Felt sign modification would be acceptable.
Commissioner Rahman - Concerns as follows: 1) if sign is left as -is, City will lose
opportunity to have improvements made, and 2) is not certain that Planning Commission
has authority to require any of the revisions,.
A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Nelson to
require the sign. to be brought conformity with the Sign Ordinance.— - - - —
COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: 'No
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: No
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: No
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
CHAIRMAN LIBARLE_: No.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
Motion was defeated.)
A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and - seconded by Commissioner Nelson to deny
the appeal but to allow a sign: modification to allow replacement of logo with no increase in
height to outside poles (27'0 "), thereby reducing the overall height of the non- conforming
sign from 33' -0" to 27' -0 ", based on the following finding:
Finding
1. The sign, as recommended for approval by staff, would be less non - conforming than
the existing sign structure.
COMMISSIONER NELSON: No - -
COMMISSIONER PARKERS.ON: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: No
CHAIRMAN .LIBARLE: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
2
I -
co
CT)
0
City of Petaluma
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 1991
NEW BUSINESS:
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(Commissioner Nelson left the meeting prior to this item.)
11. CITY OF PETALUMA, AIRPORT PCD TEXT AMENDMENT, AP NO. 136- 070 -18,
20 and 136-060-33, FILE NO. REZ91005(ws).
1. Consideration of a Negative Declaration.
2. Consideration of a PCD Text Amendment to add "golf course" as a
conditional use within the Approach Protection Subzone.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS: None.
The public hearing was closed.
M
A motion. Was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Thompson
to recommend adoption of a Negative Declaration for the proposed- text -amendment for---
the Airport PCD, based on the following findings:
COMMISSIONER NELSON: Absent
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
CHAIRMAN 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
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. Tle, project, as conditionally approved, does not have environmental effects which
willtause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
3
City of Petaluma
4 Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 1991
5. The project is, consistent with and further promotes the objectives, goals, and
policies of the General Plan.
A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman
to recommend adoption of an amendment to the Airport PCD Zone to include "golf
course" as a conditional use within the Approach Protection Sub-Zone, based on the
following; findings:
COMMISSIONER NELSON: Absent
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
Findings:
1. This PCD amendment is in harmony with the General Plan and allows coordination
with existing and planned development of the surrounding areas.
2. Streets are suitable to serve proposed uses, and since golf courses . will be a
_ conditional use, , any modification - to .the circulation system will receive public review. - -
and evaluation prior to approval..
3. This amendment does not affect the airport development schedule
4. This amendment may better serve the anticipated recreational needs of the
population.
5. Any recreational development allowed by this amendment will be :consistent with
surrounding development by virtue of its conditional status.
OLD BUSINESS
III. UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, 825 MIDDLEF'I'ELD DRIVE, AP NO. 008-471-07,
FILE N.O. GPA91004(hg).
1. Consideration of a Negative Declaration.
2. Consideration of .a General Plan Land Use Amendment from Public and
Institutional to Urban Standard.
(Per applicant's and staff's request - this item was removed from the agenda and will be
renoticed.prior to rescheduling.) -
S
City of Petaluma
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 1991
�•
PLANNING MATTER
IV. DISCUSSION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST MEMO, ADMINISTRATIVE
APPEALS.
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Thomsen led a discussion regarding conflict of
interest.
Commissioner Bennett - Are financial conflicts the only reason to abstain or can bias serve
as a reason to abstain?
Co Leslie Thomsen There is no existing City policy to restrict conflict of interest action
0) (Planning Commission By -Laws state financial as only justification for abstaining).
O Commissioner Parkerson - If the site of a specific project was viewed by an individual
Commissioner, does this fact need to be stated?
Leslie Thomsen - Yes, if site is viewed prior to meeting, it should be noted prior to
C) discussion on the item.
Commissioner Thompson - How long does a financial interest last?
Leslie Thomsen - 12 months prior to date of a vote; encouraged any Commissioner to call
the City Attorney's Office directly if they have any questions.
Further discussion clarified that when a -site visit is made prior to an agenda item's
discussion, it is a given that Commissioners had made a site visit. As long as a quorum was
_ not present or during the site visit the applicant was not questioned,- there-would be no. _ -
reason to state that the visit was made.
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION
V. UPDATE ON FANTASTIC FOODS, 1250 N. McDOWELL BLVD., FILE NO
CUP91005(tp).
1. Progress report on compliance with use permit conditions.
Staff requested authority to continue working with the new property owner and business
representatives. -
A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Bennett
to grant administrative authority to staff to continue working with the new property owner
to achieve compliance with previously adopted conditions of approval.
COMMISSIONER NELSON: Absent
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes _
CHAIRMAN LIBARLE:. Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
ADJOURNMENT 8:00 PM
min0910 _.
- -- - - / pcmin -4 - - -
5
CITY OF PE TALUMA pLANNING COMMISSION MINLJTES
-REGULAR MEETING
CITY COU N CIL CHAMBERS
CITY
September 24, 1991
7:00 P.M.
PETALUMA, CA
CO MMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Libarle *, Nelson, Parkerson, Rahman, Tarr, Thompson
ABSENT: Bennett
STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Principal Planner
It Chairman
MINUTES OF SEP
TEMBER 101 1991 MEETING were approved with corrections.
PUBLIC COMM ENT: (15 minutes maximum).
11 hear public-COMM ents only on matters over which they have
o ommission discussion or action. e chairman will allot no
The Commission wl Th
Jurisdiction.
There e will be n persons wish to speak, their
more than `five nun individual. agenda item will be
utes to any in. f more than three p _
time will be allotted so that the total amount of time allocated to this
15 minutes.
1
M anager.
CORRESPONDENCE n endations for City Street Tree List,. Memo regarding Staff
Reorganization. thin fourtee the date of a
on ma calen
p�ealedlto he City Council by
APPEAL STATEMENT:
Wi (1 )
Wi 'ssion, the decis y
a -
decision of the Planning . If no app eal is made within that time, the
or b �' any other interested p rty. if ed to the Co ci in wnfmg and shall be
the applicant
d shallbe final. An a shall be add nds for the appeal and
appeal cal shall state specifically th e u g
filed with the City Clerk. The app
the relief sought by he appellant.
DIRECTOR'S` REPORT: None.
COMMISSIONER S
REPORT: All Commissioners congra omotionatoelAssistant Cit
romotion to Planning Director and Warren Salmons p
1
Planning Commission Minutes - September 24, 1991
NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
I. QUARRY GARDENS, McNEAR AVENUE, AP NO. 008 - 471 -35, FILE NO.
REZ91012(dh).
1; Consideration of rezoning to R -1, 10,000 of a 6 -lot single - family subdivision.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS: None.
The public hearing was closed.
V A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to
recommend to the City Council the rezoning of Quarry Gardens five -lot subdivision from
R- 16,500 to R -1 10,000 based on the following findings:
COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Absent
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
Fine
1. The proposed rezoning is in general conformity with the General Plan.
2. The proposed R -1 10,000 zoning is more consistent with the development potential
U this site, which is in a Hillside Residential District. Slope density adjustments
require a minimum lot size of 14,246 sq. ft. which is met with the exception of lot 5
which is 10,800 sq.ft. in area.
II. CLOVER- STORNEITA, 91 LAKEVILLE STREET, AP NO. 007 - 041 -01, FILE NO.
VAR91011(tp).
1. Consideration of variance to exceed permitted encroachment into the
required street sideyard setback for addition of an awning.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Don Benedetti Applicant - 1030 Eucalyptus - Would like awning to cut glare into window
and to shelter people viewing through window; awning will be green and will enhance the
building; answered questions.
Commissioner Nelson - Would awning hangover public sidewalk? (Answer - No.)
2
4 9 0 Planning Commission Minutes - September 24, 1991
Commissioner's Tarr and Parkerson - can support need for awning, but cannot make
necessary findings of `hardship.
Don Benedetti Would like to see this area become more of a tourist destination; Clover -
Stornetta.is enhancing this area with landscaping, etc..
Commissioner Thompson - Needs relief at center of this long stretch of building - is in
favor of :granting variance.
Commissioner Rahman - Building needs awning - would like to grant variance.
Commissioner -Nelson - Would be ' "nit-picking" not to grant. variance.
Commissioner Liba'rle - Consideiing property and inner - sidewalk - can make findings for
variance.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman
to approve the variance for Clover Stornetta, 91 Lakeville Street, to exceed the permitted
3' encroachment into the existing 12' Madison Street side yard setback based on the
findings as follows:
COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Absent
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: 'No (reluctant to make findings for variance)
CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: No (could not make findings for variance)
Findings
1. There are peculiar and unusual conditions. inherent in the property in question
sufficient to cause a hardship, -and that such conditions are not common to all or
most of the properties in the immediate area.
2. A hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists.
in this context, personal, family or financial. difficulties, loss of prospective profits, .
and neighboring °violations are not hardships justifying a variance.
3. Such variance is necessary -for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties. in the same zoning .district and in the
vicinity, and that a variance, if granted,r would not constitute a special privilege of
the recipient not enjoyed`by his neighbors.
4. The authorizing of such variance shall not be: of substantial. detriment to adjacent
property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this ordinance or the public
interest.
III. DAVINI, 404 MCDOWELL, AP NO. 007-201-02, FILE NO. CUP91025(jj).
1. Consideration of a conditional use permit to allow an accessory dwelling
within an existing principal dwelling.
The public- hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
3
'.f .:_,....- ;'-_<.?._ :a. i... - - -- t ... -. �.... --^ 7 - -
Planning Commission Minutes - September 24, 1991
Tom Davini - Applicant - agreed to all conditions.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Nelson to
grant a conditional use for an accessory dwelling at 404 McDowell permit for an accessory
dwelling at 404 McDowell based on the findings and subject to the following conditions:
COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Absent
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
(0 COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
0 COMMISSIONER TARR- Yes
() Findinas
1. The proposed accessory dwelling, as 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 wilt not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to
public welfare of the community, subject to staff review and approval.
4. This project is categorically exempt under CEQA Section 15303, New Construction
of,Small Structures.
Conditions
1. This project shall not require review by SPARC unless exterior changes in site
design changes, subject to staff determination.
2. Separate gas and electric meters shall be installed for the proposed accessory
dwelling to the specifications of PG &E prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
3. Alternate parking space #1 shall not be used and parking space #2 shall be moved
behind parking space #4.
4. This project shall be responsible for the payment of special development fees
adopted by the Petaluma City Council for sewer and water connections, Dwelling
Construction fee, School Facilities fees, and Traffic Mitigation fees.
IV. SISCO, - POTTER'S HOUSE CHRISTIAN MEMBERSHIP CHURCH, 620 E.
WASHINGTON STREET,, SUITE 110, AP NO. 007- 062 -51, FILE NO.
CUP91024(dh)..
1. Consideration of EIQ.
2
491
:�.,.; ffT -; ; ,:, },;a: n^d 7z ✓ Y;E Y.. ° . { r..'r..`� } ��y' ... r ,_Y;?.. iu''.�,r u -r -..vl' S, ':.: ` "`"- _.,.i'. t� �''t�'SI t- _
492 Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 1991
2. Consideration of a conditional use permit to allow operation of a church and
related meetings.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Brian Sisco - 415 7th Street - Applicant - Will be signing a one -year lease with a one -year
option; this is only a temporary location; parking is available on Vallejo Street; drove by
building at 7PM and there were 35 or'so parking spaces available; does not think there is a
parkin1 problem;, questions.
Commissioner Libarle - Where does church meet now. Answer - Hermanson's Hall)
Commissioner Thom son
p What is the name of your church? (Answer Potter's House
Christian Would a limit, f 35 members Church) How many members do you now have? (Answer 13);
or one = year, whichever comes first, work? Does not think this
use belongs at this site.
Commissioner Parkerson - Staff should develop some conditions if Commission supports
approval.
Commissioner. Libarle - Opposed to this use.
Commissioner Tarr Supports use but would like conditions - wants driveway access
widened, and limitation of '30 members; look at signage.
Pamela Tuft - Will ask City Traffic Engineer to look at access.
Commissioner Libarle - Reluctant because of busy street.
Commissioner Rahman - (to applicant) Are you having problems finding a suitable site?
(Answer yes).
Commissioner Nelson Are there many rooms in the building? (Answer - yes, there is a
room.for a nursery).
Commissioner Tarr - This use in this area may be a headache for those attending service
due to lack of access for church members, but does not feel we should disallow use.
Laura Deruddi (TRI Realtors) Leasing Agent feels traffic /parking will improve with
this use because meetings are in the evenings and weekends only,.
Commissioner Nelson - Has parking concerns - however, use should be allowed with a limit
placed on membership.
Commissioner _Parkerson -'There be limits on number of members (attendance) -
staff should develop conditions if use is allowed.
After discussion, staff was directed to return to. the meeting of October 8 with
recommended Use Perinit conditions.
The public hearing was continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of October 8, 1991.
PLANNING MATTER
V. CONNOR /CLEAVER, 902: "F" .STREET AP NO. 008-371-19.
1. Consideration of an appeal,of administrative approval of a.building permit to'
relocate an existing accessory dwelling.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Libarle - ( Pamela Tuft) Did Mr. Connor agree - to removing a window
and moving the building? (Answer - yes).
5
Planning Commission Minutes - September 24, 1991
Tim Connor - 302 9th Street - refuted comments made by all involved; Mr. Salmons thinks
he can supersede the Zoning Ordinance: the unit was not occupied during the timeframe
mentioned in correspondence; non- conforming uses should be eliminated; Ms. Cleaver is a
neighbor of Mr. Salmons and, as such, is receiving "special' privileges; the notarized
statement submitted by Ms. Cleaver is not true; PG &E and water have not been supplied
to the rear unit for some time.
Commissioner Nelson - Does not feel that the unit has been lived in for some time.
Commissioner Libarle - Feels that if setbacks are met, unit should be ok.
Tim Connor - Submitted. photos of site to Planning Commission; Planning staff has not
treated him properly.
Commissioner Parkerson - (to Mr. Connor) - would five -foot setback be acceptable to you?
( Tim Connor - Not at this time.
Commissioner Libarle - (to Mr. Connor) - Personal statements do not belong in this forum.
Claudia. Cleaver - (Property owner) - Presented list of neighbors in support of project; did
0 not get building permits at beginning of project because extent of damage to building was
unknown; people living in building did not use water and electricity because of repairs
V being done; building was being worked on from time of purchase; believes Mr. Connors
concerns centered around fire and noise; would like to suggest masonry sound fence as well
as moving building; felt that Mr. Salmons was favoring Mr. Connor - not her!; is planning
on occupying the rear unit when work is completed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman
to deny the Connor appeal, thus upholding staff's determination of legal non - conforming
status but requiring rehabilitation work to include a minimum 3' sideyard setback as well as
a 5' rearyard setback and the removal of the rear elevation bedroom window subject to
staff approval, based on the following findings:
COMMISSIONER NELSON: No
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Absent
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
Findings
1. That the existing accessory unit meets the intent of the definition of legal non-
conforming structure and that rehabilitation work may proceed.
2. That the proposed rehabilitation work, including relocation, will result in a unit less
non - conforming, pursuant to Section 25 -401 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT 9:00 PM.
min0924 / pcmin -4
493
0