Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/08/1991Planning 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? co 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 Q unknown; people living in building did not use water and electricity because of repairs (, 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 BENNEIIT 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- confornurng, pursuant to Section 25 -401 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. ADJOURNMENT 9:00 PM. min0924 / pcmin -4 493 81 HE CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL October 8; 199,1 7:00 P.M. PETALUMA, CA COMMISSIONERS: Present: Bennett, Libarle*, Parkerson, Rahman, Tarr, Thompson; Absent: Nelson STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director Bonne Gaebler, Associate Planner DeDe Dolan, Assistant Planner Teryl Phillips, Assistant Planner Jane.'.Thomson, Sr. Planning Technician Darcy Henry, Planning Technician Chairman Minutes of the September 24, 1991 meeting were approved with one correction. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. DIRECTORS REPORT: 'Warren Salmons presented Pamela Tuft with City, name badge and congratulated her on her promotion to Planning Director; Discussion of CCAPA Conference; Confirmation of quorum for November 26 meeting; Confirmation of Special Planning Commission Meeting of:O'ctober 29. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Parkerson noted that the Residential Growth Management Guide was well done. CORRESPONDENCE: None. APPEAL STATEMENT Within fourteen (14) calendar days following the date of a decision of the Planning Commission,, the decision may be appealed to tfii 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 filed with the. City Clerk. The appeal shall state specifically the grounds for the appeal and the relief' sought by the appellant. City of -Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 NOTE: Italics = Corrections Strikeover = Deletiofi OLD BUSINESS CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS I. BRIAN SISCO, .POTTERS HOUSE CHRISTIAN MEMBERSHIP CHURCH, 620 E. WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 11"0, AP NO. 007 - 062 -51, FILE NO. 'CUP91024(dh). Co 1. Continued consideration of EIQ. M 2. Continued - consideration of Conditional Use Permit to allow church 0 meetings. 0 (This public hearing has been continued from the Planning Commission meeting of September 24, 1991: SPEAKERS: Louise Cothey - Triple Check Income Tax Service - Shares parking lot with this building; against project because of parking problems; if retail space is rented again there will not be enough parking spaces; objects to use. Jerry Jesperson - owner of property at 610 'Washington (shared parking with 620 Washington) - opposed to use at this site because of parking problems; Color Tile still holds lease and may return to this location; church social functions will conflict with future retail uses at this site. Commission Discussion Commissioner Parkerson - Feels there may be parking conflicts. Commissioner Rahman - This applicant shouldn't be penalized because of parking problems which `maX be created. Commissioner Bennett - The center was not properly designed, but applicant should not be penalized for problems that may arise. Commissioner Thompson - Agreed with Commissioners Bennett and Rahman. Commissioner Bennett - Will vote for this use because of limitation of hours of operation. Pamela Tuft - Suggested that use permit could be limited to one year. Commissioner Rahman - Against limitation of one year for use permit. Commissioner Parkerson - Believes all conditions, should remain as written. The public hearing was closed. (Commissioner Bennett noted that he had not'attended the first public hearing dealing with this item but that he had viewed the tape and would be voting.) A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to direct staff to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the following finding: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Absent COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN L.IBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes RM 2 City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes 4 E� October 8, 1991 COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Finding 1. Planning staff finds on the basis of the Initial Study prepared for this use and any written and /or verbal comments received during the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the conditionally approved use will have a significant effect on the environment'. A motion was made by°Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to approve a conditional use permit to allow operation of a church at 620 East Washington Street, Suite 1.10 based on the findings and subject to the following conditions: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Absent COMMISSIONER BENNETT Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings: 1. The Proposed use, subject to the conditions of approval, conforms to the intent and requirement of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. 2. The conditionally approved use will not constitute a nuisance :nor be detrimental to the public welfare of the community due to the conditions of approval. Conditions 1. Church attendance shall be held to a maximum of 35 people per service or activity held at the site. 2. This use permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review at any time due to complaints regarding lack of compliance with conditions of approval, traffic congestion, noise generation, or other adverse operating characteristics. At such time, the Commission may revoke the use permit or add/modify conditions of approval. 3. Church. meeting times shall be restricted to non -peak retail business hours such,.as evenings and weekends. It is hereby recognized that the proposed church meeting times . of Wednesday evenings from 6 PM to 9 PM, and tvvice on Sundays from 11 AM to 12 :30 PM' and from 6 PM to 9 PM, already comply with this condition. 4. 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. NEW BUSINESS II. BENSON ESTATES, BODEGA AVENUE, AP NO. 006 - 441 -06, 49,5%. $1, 54; FILE NO.6.934F(pt). 3 � — a City ofTetaluma - Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 1. Consideration of Tentative Map extension for a 20 -lot residential subdivision. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Commissioner Parkerson - Does this property contain the French Laundry Building? Has it been.zoned Historic? Pamela.Tuft - Yes, the French Laundry building is contained in this area and has been (� zoned Historic. O The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner (� Thompson to grant a 1 -year extension to the Benson Estates Tentative Map to October 2, 1992. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Absent COMMISSIONER BENNE T: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes ■ PUBLIC HEARINGS III. CUSTOM EXHAUST AND MUFFLER, BRADLEY DAVIS, 15 MAGNOLIA, AP NO. 006-041-34, FILE NO. CUP91026(dh). 1. Consideration of EIQ. 1 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow operation of an existing auto repair shop at 15 Magnolia Avenue. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Bradley Davis Applicant - Asked questions` regarding designated occupancy rating (Condition 1). Pamela on - Referred applicant to Fire Marshal and Chief Building. Official. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and - seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to direct staff to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the following finding: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Absent COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes /: 1 4 4 C �� City t f Pet - Planning Commission Minutes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Finding Planning staff finds on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no .substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to approve a conditional use permit for a major automotive repair business at 15 Magnolia Avenue based on the findings. and subject to the following conditions: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Absent COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings 1. The proposed use, subject to the conditions of approval, conforms to the intent and requirement, of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. 2. The use will not constitute a nuisance nor be detrimental to the public welfare of the community due to the conditions of approval. Conditions 1. This business shall comply with H -4 .occupancy requirements in Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Code' subject to review and approval of City staff. 2. Any visually damaged vehicles shall be stored indoors. 3. All work shall take place either indoors or out of public view. Any work. which does take place outdoors shall be screened from view and shall be minor in nature (e.g., does not create noise, does not involve dismantling, etc.), subject to determination by Planning staff.. 4. There shall. be no open storage of equipment,. materials, trash, litter, packaging, etc. 5. All premises, structures, and operating equipment shall be inspected by Building Inspector, Fire Marshal, and EOS with particular. attention paid to any potentially hazardous materials. Any corrections .deemed' necessary shall be completed within 3o days of use permit approval or as .deemed appropriate by those agencies. 6. This use permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review at any time due to complaints regarding lack, of compliance with conditions of approval, traffic congestion, noise generation,. or other adverse operating characteristics. At such 5 L. City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes October '8, 1991 time, the Commission may revoke the use permit or add /modify conditions of approval. 7. Business operation and any construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.). IV. PAYLESS DRUG, 365 E. WASHINGTON, AP NO. 007- 072 -41, FILE NO. CUP91028'akt). 1, Consideration of a conditional use permit amendment to allow outdoor display /sale of seasonal items and plants. 0 The public hearing was opened. V SPEAKERS: John Sellman -Sant - Payless Manager would like to continue using spaces in front of store so large plant selection can be continued. Commissioner Parkerson - On a recent site visit, all parking spaces were taken. Pamela. Tuft - Suggested employee parking be moved to rear loading area; staff would be glad to explore with property owner other alternatives to address parking needs. John. Sellman -Sant - Will further discuss alternatives with property owner. Eoin MacKenzie - 335 Vallejo Street - large cars overhang into the required five foot sidewalk because there are no bumper stops in front parking area; wheelchair accessibility is limited. Commission Discussion Commissioner Bennett - Service to community overshadows loss of a few parking spaces; common sense is being caught up in bureaucracy. Commissioner Thompson - Enjoys selection of flowers and plant, would like displays to remain.: Commissioner Parkerson - Spaces should be taken out if they are not used for parking. Commissioner Tarr - A viable alternative can probably be worked out with the property owner. Commissioner Libarle - Allowing removal. of these parking spaces may be. setting a precedent for other centers; supports staff recommendations because of Ordinance /Zoning requirements for parking. Pamela Tuft - Staff will be happy to work with property owner and Payless to reach an acceptable solution. Linda Rahman Agreed with Pamela Tuft, but does have concerns with precedent setting. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to approve a conditional use permit amendment to allow the outdoor display of seasonal items and. plants at 365 East Washington based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed.below:. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Absent COMMISSIONER BENNETT: No (would like to see parking reconfiguration) COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes 499 Z 5G, 0 City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: No (unnecessary was working fine as it was) COMMISSIONER TARR- Yes Finings 1. The proposed use, subject to the conditions of approval,, conforms to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. 2. This use will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community due to the conditions of approval. Conditions 1. All previous conditions of 'approval (8/16/77 and 8/21/79) shall remain in force, and be made a part of this .approval. 2. All outdoor display /storage shall be located as indicated in Exhibits "B" and "C' year round. A 5' -0" (minimum) passageway between the items for sale /display /storage and the parking spaces shall be kept clear at all times. At no time shall ihe:items for display /sale /storage outside block the entrance /exit doors, emergency exits,. time shall e handicapped all i parking, 2 phone booths, or newspaper racks at the Payless Drugstore. _ ms for sale /display /storage be allowed in any parking space(s). 3. This amendment is unique to. Payless Drugstore at 365 East Washington, and does not infer the right for any other business in the center to use the outdoor areas for display /storage /without first applying to the Planning Commission for an amendment to the Use Permit for the Shopping Center. 4. This use permit, ,may be recalled. to the Planning Commission for review at any time due to complaints regarding lack of compliance with conditions of approval traffic congestion, noise generation, or other adverse` operating characteristics. At such time, the Commission may revoke the use permit or add /modify conditions of approval. V. RIDGEVIEW`ESTATES, 125 SUNNYHILL DRIVE, AP NO'S 019 - 201 -06 AND 019- . 201-25; FILE NO. TSM91007 VAR91012 (dd). 1. Consideration of a, Pre- Tentative: Map -to permit a 10 -lot subdivision and a Subdivision Ordinance Modification for a 5.14 acre parcel. The public hearing was opened. Commissioner Bennett - Abstain due to financial conflict of interest SPEAKERS: Commissioner Parkerson - Concerns that individual SPARC review would not go o full. SPARC. Commissioner Rahman - Wouldn't Development Standards complicate design - in a few years? - Commissioner Tarr - Questions, regarding density calculations. Commissioner Rahman - Are retaining walls usually avoided? 7 :47 ?F : ^±s.,• :�'e "+,.,- ..T ;;�• ^P..rs ;z�. ^3_ ..;�7^• ^, ._......_ ... _-.r........ -. ,..— .�- �..,..,..,. �........•...,...,.-,....e..... ..._........._._._.___.__._..__ City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes October: 8, 1991 Eoin MacKenzie - 335 Vallejo Street - questions regarding sidewalks for wheelchair users; sidewalks are a necessity, they should be set back so garbage cans don't block the path. Steve Buckley - Applicant's Agent - Would like to keep Beat' e pro erty exempt from deed restrictions; wants sidewalks to remain (meandering) for safety can work with staff on design); opposed to Landscape Assessment District formation because of poor maintenance; Lot 6 does have a very large building envelope - can work with staff; would like to remove eucalyptus trees because of liability; does not want a parking bulb in the cul de sac; construction noise standards seem overly- stringent. Commissioner Parkerson - Eucalyptus trees are not always dangerous and in need of removal; meandering sidewalk is a good idea. Bonnie Mogel - Applicant Engineer - Answered questions regarding continuation of sidewalks on Sunnyslope Road. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to recommend to the City Council approval of the Pre - Tentative Map and Subdivision Ordinance Modification based on the findings and subject to the following amended conditions: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Absent COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Abstain COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Pre - Tentative Map Findings 1. The proposed Pre - Tentative map as conditioned to require SPARC approval of revised grading plans and development guidelines for future development of the lots, is .in general conformity with the provisions of the General Plan Community Character Chapter. 2. The proposed Pre - Tentative map is exempt from the City's Growth Management Plan because with out the remaining parcel the project is less than five acres and less than fifteen The remaining lands are excluded because they are developed with an existing house. 3. SPARC approval of the development standards and administrative SPARC review prior to the issuance of a building permit, to insure compliance with these standards will sufficiently address the need for quality design on the site. 4. The project is consistent with the Housing elements policies of promoting a mix of housing types including higher -value housing. 5. The Proposed Pre- Tentative map as conditioned is in general conformity with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The Proposed Pre- Tentative map as conditioned is in general conformity with the subdivision ordinance. City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 7. The proposed Pre - Tentative map complies with the policies of the Sunny Slope PUD and addresses the relevant mitigation measures required by the Sunny Slope Environmental Impact Report. 8. The proposed Pre- tentative Map is within the scope of the certified Program EIR and the mitigation measures adequately address the environmental impacts of the project. No new environmental documentation is required. Subdivision Ordinance Modification Findings 1. The Sunnyslope PUD perrruts modifications to the standard lot size and dimensions subject to approval by the- Planning Commission and the City Council to promote the most environmentally - sensitive and land efficient lotting patterns without exceeding the maximuin development potential allotted to the individual parcels. 2. The proposed Ridgeview Heights subdivision does not exceed the allotted development potential often lots for the parcel and promotes the Sunny Slope goal of creating divisions of land in a more environmentally sensitive way. 3. There are special circumstances affecting the property because of the steepness at the top of the hill make accessing these areas difficult and the development of the area would require a substantial amount of grading. The relatively flat areas toward the bottom of the hill provide a much better area for development. 4. The modification is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment ;of the property right of the petitioner to develop his lot to the density permitted by the Sunny Slope assessment district and .PCD while being environmentally sensitive to the specific characteristics of the site. 5. Granting of the modification will not be detrimental to the public welfare or safety or injurious to other property or to the neighborhood but .will improve the appearance of the subdivision by limiting the amount of grading necessary to develop the parcels. Conditions for .Pre- Tentative Map and Subdivision Ordinance Modifications 1. A restriction shall be recorded on the Beatie property to prevent future subdivision of the Beatie land in excess of the overall permitted density. 2. The remaining lands shall be included as parcel 10 on the Pre- Tentative Map. 3 T sidewi�Fk-&-on-4 lie- pFQposed- Fead=- sha4-be- ,&14ni ated at -sttggest-ed- iH -4he- FF�iga�aFts- to-F�e- t1�- a� ©x�t - © €- grading -�ed�� lie- Fead- iallati ©FE-a to7ffesefve4he- Fufa4-0h &Factor: ---------- Flee- la�dseape- laF -sba l-- also -be- revised- to- -i lt}de- -la dscape- tF }p- aloes -tom errtire+oadway- 3. The applicant shall e-ra$te- eat any- t#is- pF©pert�4e-a be responsible for establishing a landscape maintenance assessment district or provide some other means for to maintaining all landscaping and irrigation installed within the public right -of -way of the project not normally associated with private front yard maintenance, including entryway landscape area, median islands, and unused area of right-of-way and cul'- 6 of SrFF . City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 de -sac landscape islands subject to approval of City staff prior to final ma .. _ .. . .... ... n r .1 t 1 • _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ " _ _ . T% be- -berne - -by --fie- , developer - : All landscaping wntalned-- iti --a:- f rpoposed- 4undsca-pe ma. int- ena-nce- nssessineint- distf4c4 within the public right -of -way shall be maintained fora period of one (1) year by the project sponsor prior to acceptance by the district. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 4. SPARC review of the tentative map should concentrate on the following: a. treatment pr-eseivaden of existing trees as recommended by a professional arborist, b. maximizing openspace, C. minimizing grading, d. protecting view corridors e. To preserve the rural character of the parcel and to minimize the amount of grading, the proposed road plans shall be modified to provide alternate sidewalk paving materials or sidewalk design (e.g. meandering sidewalks). f. SPARC shall review the possibility of requiring landscape strips along the entire roadway. 5. The application to SPARC for review of the Pre- Tentative Map shall include a study of the views through the site to establishing the most sensitive location for the building envelopes on each site. 6. The storm drains along the west side of the subdivision shall be moved to avoid interference with the existing strand of trees, subject to approval by the City Engineer. 7. The application to SPARC shall include a modification of the grading plans to further minimize grading on lots 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9. The grading plan shall be modified to reduce the size of the pad on Lots 6 to be more equal in size to the other lots. 'Detailed grading plans for the driveways must be submitted for review by SPARC prior to recordation of final map approval. 8. A permanent open space easement subject to approval by SPARC shall be recorded over the portions of lot 6 and the Beatie property which are not currently developed. This open space easement should be comparable in size to the amount of space that would have been included in the clustered lots if the minimum R -1- 20,000 standards had been adhered to. 9. The applicant shall submit separate design guidelines for adoption by SPARC as the development standards for future development. - The guidelines shall include maximum developments standards as well as minimum standards. Any requirements of the CC &R's which conflict with the standards approved by SPARC shall be eliminated from the CC &R's. 10. The applicant, shall eliminate the minimum area for square footage requirement from the CC &R's in order to encourage plans which are sensitive to the topography of the site. 10 City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 11. Individual- development plans shall be subject to an administrative SPARC review to determine compliance with the 'SPARC approved development standards. 12. The applicant shall comply with the following condition of the City Water Department: a. The applicant shall "Hot tap" the existing 12" main, a minimum of 32" from the existing tee or any other fittings. Plans to continue water service to the exiting house should be shown on map and include relocation plans if necessary. 13. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions of the Fire Marshal: a.. Locate fire hydrants to the satisfaction of the City Fire Inspector. b. All roof covering material shall have a Class "B" rating or better, treated in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 32.7. C. All roof covering materials applied as exterior wall covering shall have a fire rating of class "B' treated .in accordance with UBC Standard 32.7, as per Ordinance 1744 of the City of Petaluma. d. Provide fire suppression system at normal sources. of ignition. These areas are specifically at clothes dryers, kitchen stoves, furnaces, water heaters, fireplaces, and in attic areas at vents and chimneys for these .appliances and equipment. 14. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the City Engineer: a. All street lights used within this Development shall have standard .metal fixtures dedicated to the City for ownership and maintenance. Prior to City acceptance, the developer shall verify all lights meet PG &E's L52 rating system. b. Signing and striping shall conform to City standards. C. This development shall be required to contribute to the City's Major Traffic Facilities fee. The amount of contribution shall be $2,886.00 for residential development per unit. d. Water pressure calculations shall be required for this development verifying the system adequacy ,for fire flows and domestic service. (This item shall be verified concurrent with improvement plan review). e. A private storm drain maintenance agreement between remaining lands Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, between remaining lands and Lot 6 and between Lots 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 shall be submitted in a recordable form. These agreements shall. also specify timing of maintenance and be in a form acceptable to the City, staff and recorded concurrent with Final. Map.. All grading and erosion control measures shall conform to the City's. Erosion Control, Ordinance No. 1576 N.C.S. (Improvement plan requirement). 11 L I . .>n..: . J+�..... a:.sr �,:..r -. :n .... _.. Yr �..: le:�. .....k........ ..�_ :.?i ._._..___...- .._.....: .a. ..e s�.. _,,.: :a/,xa�f •: yfL.r._.� v)r..;w!_��FY(17.. ,e -.: '::. e31 .i- f:i •1Ui... rJ i:S .. •r yS 03h_c.a..; •�.. City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 f. The developer shall comply with the Petaluma Municipal Code, Section 20.36.010 and 20.36.020 which require the developer to pay storm drainage impact fees (as calculated in Chapter 17.30) on construction in all sections of the City of Petaluma. 15. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the City Traffic Engineer: a. The Tentative Map shall be modified to the extent possible so that the east side of the entrance to the court shall have the same radius as proposed for the west side to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b. The map shall be revised to include a landscaping canoe for parking in the center of the court. 16. The applicant shall comply with the following specific mitigations measures incorporated by the City Council with the approval of the PUD for the Sunnyslope area. LAND USE a. Project related losses of open space and local rural character due to future additional development in the area, a significant impact, could not be mitigated to insignificant levels, but could be substantially reduced, through use of city P.U.D. procedures to achieve clustering and preserve hillside and woodland areas as permanent open space. (P) b. The valued rural character of the area shall also be reflected in the design details. of these .future subdivision. For example, use of minimum road widths, common landscaping with native species, and avoidance of development standards indicative of more urbanized areas (concrete sidewalks, electroliers, etc.) shall be encouraged through city P.U.D. procedures. (P) C. Removal of mature trees and, in particular, disruption of the riparian, hillside, and ridgetop woodland areas, shall be prohibited to the extent possible. (See mitigation measure "a' in section IV.H.3 of the FEIR for tree replacement recommendations. (SC, P) d. In order to comply with adopted city policies regarding affordable housing, the development of the seven annexation area parcels with development potentials of five or more units shall be required by the city to either (1) provide between 10 and 15 percent of the project units at prices affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households; or (2) provide some alternative means of complying with these city housing goals. Based upon the small size of each development, the most probable option would be the payment of the per unit in -lieu fee amount in effect at the time of individual project development. (P) TRANSPORTA'T'ION ' e. A reasonable fair share cost responsibility shall be assessed to annexation area properties for those planned or recently completed off -site roadway 12 City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minute.- October 8, 1991 improvements and cumulative traffic impact mitigations which will directly benefit those properties in the future. GEOTECHNICAL FACTORS f.. Lined drainage ditches or alternative engineering techniques shall be required by the city to be incorporated into the grading pla of all future hillside development proposals within the annexation area in order to C apture f runo and reduce potentials for erosion problems on cuts and fills. 9. To minimize on erosion during construction ction periods, future infrastructure improvements, by the county and future residential 1 � construction by private developers shall be carefully planri occur during the driest.months of the year, and erosion control measures such as "silt fences", temporary silting basins, and drainage control's shall, be used. (SC, P) h. The potential for. damage to foundations, slabs, and pavements in future residential development caused by soil expansion .and contraction can be routinely mitigated through normal engineering methods, such as soil treatment, over- excavation and replacement of expansive soils with non- expansive materials,, use of geotextiles to increase supporting, strength and segregate fill over expansive subgrade soils, use of supported floors, and use of foundations on drilled piers. Under the city's normal subdivision review requirements, further investigation of site areas identified herein as underl Ain by potentially expansive soils will be required prior to approval of the Final Mao for individual development proposals to determine more specifically what engineering measures may be necessary. (P) L Expansive soils shall not be used in compacted fills immediately beneath the proposed roadway improvements or under future residential foundations. In its normal review or subsequent engineering specifications for all future roadway construction and residential subdivision construction, projects, city engineers shall ,give special attention to any proposed' use of compacted fill where expansive sorts to be used. The geotechnical investigations and specifications routinely required by the city for such projects shall include an evaluation of'the suitability of expansive soils for use in Ill. - P j.. The following: measures will be used as necessary, to reduce the potential for landslide damage to future residential development: Removal of landslide deposits. Reinforcement of, potentially unstable cut-and-fill slopes during grading Construction of diversion berms. Reconstruction of slopes and creek - banks to create stable inclines. Collection /control of isurface runoff in lined drainage ditches. Clustering of development to avoid steep slopes; And/or interception of subsurface seepage through use of subdrains. (P) k. Appropriate seismic design parameters shall be incorporated into the design and. construction of the proposed infrastructure improvements by the county and in subsequent private residential, development foundations and structures, graded slopes, and retaining walls. (SC, P) 13 f] 77 City oUPetaluma - Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALI'T'Y 1. A construction period erosion control plan, as required by the San Francisco Regional Water Control Board, shall be prepared by all future residential development applicants in the project area for approval by the city. This plan shall include such measures as construction scheduling, plus mechanical and vegetative measures to reduce erosion and sedimentation, and appropriate seasonal maintenance. The plan shall remain in effect for a period of time sufficient to stabilize each site for all phases of the proposed projects and shall be monitored on a regular basis. (P) M. Implementation of the plans shall be monitored during the construction period by the project proponent and the city to ensure that the programs effectively reduce sedimentation increases in Thompson and Kelly Creeks to insignificant levels. (P) n. Each future subdivision in the project area shall be subject to the drainage impact fee requirements set forth in the city's Storm Drainage Impact Fee Ordinance. (P) MUNICIPAL SERVICES /FEES o. Tlie will require that future developers of each developable property in the annexation area be responsible for providing on -site water delivery systems and loop connections which meet city water supply and fire protection standards. (P) p Any new development would be required by the city to pay the city's standard water connection fee of $1,250/unit (minus $325 per unit if the developer installs water mains). (P) q. The city must require that the developer of each new project area subdivision be responsible for providing on -site sanitary sewer collection systems and linkages to the city's collector sewers per the specifications of the city's Public Works Department. (P) .r. The city must also require that any new development pay the city's standard sewer connection fee ($2,550 /unit as of November, 1988). These particular sewer fund monies shall be allocated to the needed I Street collector main improvements. (P) S. Any new residential development in the "impacted" project area will be required to pay the District's standard school impact fee, which is currently $1.15 per square foot of development and which would be used to expand elementary school facilities. This fee is expected to be adjusted upward by the fall of 1988. (P) t. Any new residential development in the project area shall be required by the city to meet its police standards with'respect to security provisions. Security measures shall. include outdoor lighting,' adequate locks on units, and illuminated house numbers. (P) U. City design standards require that the project conform to applicable fire codes and policies for such items as the size, location, and pressure levels of 14 City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 proposed water mains (2,000 gallons per minute at 20 psi), and the installation of fire hydrants, emergency call boxes, and smoke detectors.. The city shall, also consider requiring that all project residential structures be constructed with fire-retardant roof materials, that those structures. (or floors) above the 160 foot Zone. I service elevation be equipped with fire sprinkler systems. (P) V. The developers of each parcel in the area with additional development capacity shall be required to pay the city's Park and Recreation Land Improvement Fee to provide for necessary improvements to McNear Neighborhood Park and other local parks as designated by the Petaluma Neighborhood .Parks and Recreation Department.. The city shall adjust its park fee ordinance requirements and/or actively pursue additional means of providing the necessary park acreage. These may include some combinations of additional funding . measures (assessment district funding, pity bonds, state and federal grants, etc.) and recreational use of the urban separator. On the other hand, the creation of additional parkland in the project area would increase the maintenance responsibilities of the Parks. and Recreation Department. (P) W. Collection service fees collected from each project t homeowner would be set to cover the cost of collection and disposal of domestic solid waste. (P) NOISE X. New housing proposed within 150 feet of Sunnyslope, Road, Suftnyslope Avenue, and I Street, and within .200 to 250 feet of D Street south of Sunnyslope, Avenue, could be, exposed to traffic noise levels in excess of an Ldn of 60 dB. Site plans of future'individual residential projects along these routes shall be reviewed to. ensure that outdoor activity areas are' located where the Ldn would be less than 60 dB and that indoor areas can maintain an Ldn of 45 dB or less. (P) Construction of individual residential, projects in the project area could result in significant temporary noise impacts, Y. These short-term impacts can be reduced by implementing the recommendations set forth in Program 23 of the city's Noise Element, including the following: (SC, P) Z. Noise generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to an and from- the project. area, shall be limited to daytime weekday (non-holiday) hours (7 AM to 7 PM). aa. All construction equipment. powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained. bb. All stationary mise 7 generating construction . equipment, such as air compressors,. essors,, shall be located as far as practical from existing residences and shielded wherever possible. CC. Quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, shall be selected whenever possible. The prudent selection of equipment, along with use of proper mufflers, shall result in maximum (non-impact tool ) construction- 15 7 _R* City of Petaluma -Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 related noise generated by a particular piece of equipment of no more than 85 dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet from the piece of equipment operating at its noisiest mode. AIR QUALITY The contractors selected by the county to construct the proposed assessment district public improvements, and the developers of individual future residential projects in the project area, shall both be required to implement particulate control measures during the construction period, such as the following: dd. Sprinkle all exposed portions of all construction sites completely twice daily. (SC, P) de. Schedule major dust- generating activities for the early morning and other hours when wind velocities are low. (SC, P) ff. Cover storage piles (fill, refuse, etc.). (SC, P) ARCHAEOLOGY gg. Should archaeological deposits be encountered during the grading or construction of future development in the project area, work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall halt, and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to evaluate the finds. Mitigation measures as prescribed by the archaeologist shall be undertaken prior to resumption of construction activities. (SC, P) VI. PEP VALLEJO /PAYRAN /JEFFERSON STREETS, AP NO'S. 007 - 104 -1,3 AND 4; FILE NO'S GPA91002, PRE91025, REZ91007 (bg). 1. Consideration of EIQ. 2. Consideration of General Plan Amendment from Industrial to Mixed Use. 3. Consideration of Rezoning from Light Industrial to Planned Unit District. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Commissioner Rahman - Why is staff recommending an ML zoning? Why does PEP not want to ,use the entire area? Commissioner Parkerson - Not sure if this is a good place for residential use of this type (noise-from Fairgrounds, etc.), * Eoin MacKenzie - 335 Vallejo - Was against a previously proposed high - density project at this site; 100% in favor of this project; a 3 -way stop sign is needed at Vallejo Street; race track is really the. only noisy event at fair grounds; completely in favor of this project. Dick L`ieb - Project.proponent - the high school is in favor of the project and all neighbors seem to be also; Hospice may use this ML section of the site; blending pproject into the ��air existing.residential uses is the idea; units facing fair grounds will be conditioned to allow windows remain closed during noisy events; there will be space between single - family homes. Commissioner Tarr - When single - family homes are designed, shared driveways should be considered. 16 City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 Commissioner Bennett If Hospice does not use this site, what will go in the ML area? Dick Lieb - it would probably be offices. Commissioner Parkerson - This site should be zoned PUD; this is not a. creative plan; plan should be more unified - does not support this. project at all. Commissioner Tarr - (to Parkerson)' What type of project are you suggesting? Commissioner Parkerson - Limited layout. possibilities are forced by this proposal. Kurt Yeiter Layout as proposed will allow sale of portion for single - family dwellings to pay for balance of project. Commissioner Libarle - Feels this is a very creative project, very creative planning. Commissioner Rahman Likes the proposal. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to recommend to the City Council adoption of a mitigated negative declaration based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER NELSON: absent COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PA.RKERSON: No (cannot make findings 2,3,4) CHAIRMAN .LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: No 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. The project, as conditionally approved, does not have environmental effects which will. cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 5. Approval of a General. Plan amendment and rezone- to . PUD does not preclude further environmental review when project details are further refined or if the development plan changes significantly. A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson., and seconded. by Commissioner Rahman to recommend to the City Council approval of, a General Plan land; _' use designation modification for the single - family Dortion_from Industrial toil Mixed. Use: for the a p ortion from. Industrial to. Mixed�'Use; and for the office portion, no change from industrial, based on the following to COMMISSIONER NELSON: Absent 17 -..'. <:9. _ -. -..... :. .. .. .. _ : ..... -- .......- ,..._...........�..., ....... ...... ..... ......... .+.+...i -fir.. ....- .- .�..... - �.- - � -. - _..:k.. � _ .. .. City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER. RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: No (entire site should be PUD) CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: No (entire site should be PUD) Findings 1. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest. 2. The proposed General Plan amendment is consistent, compatible with, and implement several goals and policies of the General Plan. 3. The potential impacts of the proposed amendment have been assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 4. The proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 5. The project will help the City achieve its housing policies relating to housing type, location, mix or affordability. 6. The project is designed to be compatible with surrounding uses. 7. The project, as conditionally approved, will not have a detrimental impact on ;existing infrastructure - especially traffic and access to the street network. 8. The project will not have a detrimental impact on the City's inventory of commercially developable land, but will actually benefit the community by bringing residents closer to commercial and retail services. 9. The project design ensures an attractive, comfortable, and healthy living environment. I A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to recommend to the City Council the rezoning of the single - family portion of the project site from -ML to R -C (Compact Single - Family Residence District) and no change from the Light Industrial for the office, based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Absent COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: No (entire site should be PUD) CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR No (entire site should be PUD) Findings: 1. Said zone provides an area within Petaluma where attached, detached, and semi- "; attached dwellings may be constructed. i 0 . >fex City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 2. Said zone is compatible with the existing neighborhood. 3. Said zone allows a single- family transition from the existing neighborhood to the higher density apartment portion of the proposed site. NOTE': The Commission continued the hearing on the elder .apartment's re -zone to PUD to the Planning. Commission meeting of November 12, 1991. AGENCY COMMENTS WILL BE INCORPORATED IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR EITI=IER THE PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN (APARTMENTS) OR THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE SINGLE - FAMILY PORTION AS APPROPRIATE. VII. PETALUMA MARINA /DONOHUE SPUR, AP NO. 005- 060 -60, FILE- NO. GPA91007(dd). 1. Consideration of a'Negative Declaration. 2. Consideration of a General Plan Amendment to attach a land use designation of "Mixed Use" and "Industrial" to the former railroad spur. The public hearing was opened SPEAKERS: Randy Meadors - Marina Office Park Associates - answered questions; bike access will' be provided to wetlands site. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to recommend. to the City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration as it relates to the proposed General Plan Amendment based on the following finding: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Absent COMMISSIONER .BENNETT- Yes COMMISSIONER RAH MAN:' Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Fi- �ndin� 1. On the basis of the Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that the proposed General Plan Amendment to attach a land use designation to the former marina railroad spur as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment. A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to recommend to the City Council approval of the General Plan amendment to designate the former railroad right of way as "Mixed Use and "Industrial" based on' the following findings: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Absent 19 i City oI' Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 I COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKER. SON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes I Findings l 1. The proposed General Plan amendment is Plan because the proposed designations fo r parcels surrounding the project site. consistent with the rest of the General the most part reflect the land uses of 2. The proposed General Plan amendment is deemed to be in the public interest because the area is no longer functioning as a railroad spur and without a change in the designation, the site will remain undeveloped, possible. deteriorating into a blighted area as other parcels around it are developed. 3. The proposed impacts of the General Plan Amendment have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health and safety or welfare because impacts resulting from the subsequent development can be mitigated through the development plan and parcel map approvals as indicated in the Initial Study. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). PLANNING MATTER VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CITY STREET TREE LIST (tp). 1. Discussion of recommendations for revised Street Tree List to be forwarded to Recreation, Music and Parks Commission. DISCUSSION A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to recommend to the Recreation, Music and Parks Commission amendment to the proposed Street Tree List to address the 9 items listed below: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Absent COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes 1. References to minor, collector and major streets should be eliminated. Selection of iree species should not be based on the relative scale of the street, but on the desired effect and existing conditions. SPARC has supported use of large canopied trees on small residential streets. 20 City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 2. The column labeled "Minimum Planter Size" should either be deleted_ or modified to reflect a recommended planter width or area (square feet) only. Most of the City's street tree planter strips are less than 4.5' in width, and many are only about 3' e. a standard street sections recently adopted for many new residential subdivisions indicate a 4' planter strip. Hence, adoption of the: minimum planter specifications shown in the Santa Rosa list would severely limit species options for street tree plantings in Petaluma. In turn, overuse of a few "appropriate tree species in the long run invites the opportunity for large -scale disease infestations. 3. The column headings under "Tree Characteristics" and "Planting Application" need some further definition provided. The user should be able to refer to a separate sheet of information that explains what is meant by "Tree Well ", "Natural Area ", "Confined Space ", etc. Some of these headings (e.g., Growth Rate, 'Boulevard, Natural Area, Rocky Hillside), may not be necessary or desirable for inclusion in the list. 4. The tree list should include recommended species for planting under the following conditions which occur within the City: a. Small (_ sq. ft.) or narrow ( <3' wide) planter areas in sidewalks adjacent to parking areas or buildings. b. Vertical restrictions due to building eaves, overhead utilities, etc. C. View preservation on hillsides and along scenic corridors; solar access preservation. d. Screen plantings adjacent to sound walls and perimeter fencing exposed to public streets, parking areas, and unattractive industrial or commercial areas. e. Median islands impacted by truck traffic and constrained by sight distance visibility requirements. f. Non - irrigated areas, water - conserving species and native landscapes. g. Strong winds and freezing temperatures. 5. The "Comments" section of the list should include precautions pertaining to potentially hazardous characteristics (aggressive root systems, low branching habit, brittle wood, etc.), disease susceptibility, and special sensitivities to environmental conditions (i.e., wind, fog, clay soils) that are unique to the species. :It should also include comments on beneficial.. characteristics such as disease resistance, and exceptional tolerance to adverse climatic conditions (i.e., freezing temperatures, mildew resistance). 6. The list of trees should be reviewed by landscape professionals for appropriateness in terms of performance in this locality,. Since soil and climatic conditions vary Widely in Sonoma County, it is likely that some of the trees on the Santa Rosa list will' perform differently in Petaluma. This list may also overlook some species which perform beautifully here. 7. Consideration should be given to include trees that, encourage recognition of the natural environment and agricultural heritage of Sonoma. County, and the historic character of Petaluma. 21 _.. - -- City of Petaluma - Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 8. Spacing recommendations for individual tree species should be included as a guide for homeowners and landscape designers, based on growth characteristics. 9. The proposed list should be referred to PG &E for comment with regard to trees located adjacent to utility easements. Y ADJOURNMENT 10:35 PM min1008 / pcom16 / jabt. 22 fv?sivi...:44"' =L.: T eTYtGY:4 TPaC4°� .._,. °r -:• rsr..�. -- -r. e..m,�... --.. .. .. _ -.. ... _ _ ._- ... _ _. -,_ .... .. ... kT7. �+Y: r' r° Pn. a?t °- 's'�i9f:_rti^.f^Mx^� -. '�'Tr' .. �� -. .. .. - . •--- ..e.^- ,.!..r.— r.....- .- .j:i;,