Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/10/198891 r PETA�LUMA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY; COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL i May 10, 1988 Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. PETALUMA, CALIF. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bennett, Doyle, Libarle,* Parkerson, Read, Tarr i COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Sobel x STAFF: Warren Salmons, Planning Director Pamela Tuft, Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter, Associate Planner Jenny Cavanagh, Planning Technician *Chairman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of April 26, 1988 were approved with corrections on page 7. CORRESPONDENCE No correspondence other than pertaining to this agenda. PUBLIC COMMENT None. COMMISSIONER COMMENT None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT APA National Conference, Budget 1988 =89. COMMISSIONER's REPORT None. READING OF APPEAL RIGHTS 1 92 PUBLIC HEARINGS OLD `BUSINESS I. JANE HAMILTON, ET AL. 1. Consideration of appeal of administrative decision regarding allowable uses in C`` -H zone. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Dave Netech - 304 2nd St. — No noise from existing machine shop; lives across the street. Ernie Jensen - 99 Pepper Lane Owns property proposed for machine shop; does not think machine shop would be too noisy; will do some exterior improvements. Jane . Hamilton 110 G Street - Represented 2nd St. Homeowners Association about 30 people. in audience) working on Historic District designation; read appeal letter. Barry Parkinson - 30 5th Street ' - Representing applicant - explained applicant position to handle more ato parts) part of expansion - plan;, feels this use is a permitted use - not conditional; use of building will be approximately same as existing; move is needed to expand business. John _Hogue 201 G Street Questions why this site would be better than previously proposed and denied site; not compatible with the neighborhood. Harold Metcalfe applicant his- business is already in the same area; no nuisance; no noise, no night work, no changes in structure; will eventually purchase building; needs room to expand; described future business; 10% of parts go out front door - balance of parts go into machine shop work. Larry Metcalfe - applicant answered questions regarding operation of proposed business; parts sales have grown; need. to expand, not enough inventory storage; will not change exterior of building, will upgrade landscaping. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Doyle and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to deny the appeal and find that the use as described as an auto parts store is a principal permitted use with the machine shop as a permitted accessory use in the C -H zone. COMMISSIONER BENNETT No - should be a conditional use COMMISSIO'NER DOYLE - Yes 2 93 COMMISSIONER PARKERSON - No - should be a conditional use COMMISSIONER READ - No - should be a conditional use COMMISSIONER S.OBEL - ABSENT COMMISSIONER TARR - Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARLE* - Yes r Note:; Due to the split vote - the motion to deny the appeal was disapproved. By consensus, the Commission directed staff to forward the appeal to the City Council for consideration. NEW 'BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS II. WESTRIDGE, UNITS 4 and 5, " I " STREET, AP NO. 019 - 240 -04 and portion of 019 - 401 -02 (Files 11.864, 3.373 and 6.868). 1. Consideration of Draft EIR. 2. Consideration of PUD Prezone. 3. Consideration of Tentative Map for 177 single- family lots. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: John ,Wagstaff - EIR Consultant - gave overview of EIR. Mark Crane - Traffic Engineer - answered questions regarding sidewalks, traf is volumes. Dick 'Folla - 143 Westridge Drive - Bought home because house borders Thompson Creek green belt; concerns regarding flooding, owns lowest house' on Westridge Drive; when were dams built? Christine Cowen - 195 Ridg'evew - Population, generated will be higher than 2.6 per household: average population in existing Westridge is 3.52 per household: problems with sewage systems now; questions regarding planned drainage improvements; 'too much traffic on D Street; sound level too high. John Stuber (Stuber /Stroeh Engineers) applicant's_ Engineer - pg. 7 - Urban Separator, non development easement ?; pg. 9 - trip generation too high;, pg. 11 - internal circulation; pg. 12 - access road construction (lots 153, ,154) ; Lot 152 - building site down by street; pg. 15 - 7 custom lots, building sites no higher than 270 feet; pg. 15 - separate water pump systems on some lots necessary (above 165') ; pg. 17 - passive recreation; pg, T9 - potential for saving eucalyptus trees. Detrieh Stroeh (Stuber /Stroeh Engineers) applic Engineer - Flooding at Sunnyslope Road should be eliminated with recent improvements; advantages of project - existing storm water drainage conditions will be improved because of check dams along river; existing dams are earth filled; entrance corrections to Sunnyslope. ridge. 94 John Nelson 1709 Alhambra Court - traffic impacts; new road. 'should be built: to "D Street; Water Agency concerns with turf planting '(uses too much water). David Keller - 1321. I Street - Thompson Creek should not be changed - channelization as proposed is against GP policies; archeological site will be disturbed; flood control plan is deficient as designed - only 10% margin of storm safety; flow restrictors would probably become inoperable; Map 14 shows only most. northern tip of : property; no review of dam safety; Thompson Creek, should be left natural; flood plain should be expanded; riparian habitat should be maintained; mature oak tree should be left and rock outcroppings maintained; sloped building sites should be eliminated; solar energy should be addressed; EIR can not be accepted until traffic questions are addressed. This public hearing was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 24 - first agenda item. III. ELIM LUTHERAN CHURCH - DAY CARE - 210 STANLEY AND 504 BAKER, AP NO. 006 - 385 -16 and 25, (File No. 1.585) . 1. Consideration of EIQ . 2. Consideration. of Conditional Use `Permit to allow 2 day -care facilities in conjunction with existing church and preschool. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Richard Rodkin - 112 Terrace Ave. - applicant; wants child care to be non - profit concerns with conditions 8;, 9 and 17; wants to provide quality day care at low cost. Tim Kellgren 410 'Upham St.. - Pastor, Elim Lutheran Church - described day care will provide low 'cost child care; neighbors have no complaints; will not significantly increase traffic. Jan. Forney - 644 Catulpa. Way - Co- director of proposed facilities - Plan to open centers on June 20 answered questions on operation details. The public hearing was closed. A .motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to direct staff to prepare a mitigated negative declaration based on the amended findings as follows: COMMISSIONER BENNETT - Yes COMMISSIONER DOYLE - Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON - Yes COMMISSIONER READ - Yes COMMISSIONER SOBEL - ABSENT COMMISSIONER TARR = Yes COMMISSIONER LIB,ARLE* - Yes 4 R5 • Findings a. The proposed use does not have the potential' to degrade the quality of the environment. b. The proposed use as conditionally approved does not have the potential t o achieve short term to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals. C. The proposed use as conditionally approved does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. d. The proposed use as conditionally approved does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse affect upon human beings either directly or indirectly. e. Potential adverse noise and traffic impacts are mitigated through conditions of approval. f. Site to be reviewed after one year _of operation to determine necessity of sound walls around outdoor play areas. i A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to grant a conditional use permit based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions as follows: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER BENNETT Yes DOYLE - Yes PARKERSON - Yes READ - Yes SOBEL - ABSENT TARR - Yes LIBARLE *. - Yes 1. The proposed use, subject to, the conditions of approval conforms to the intent and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. 2. This use will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of -the community due to the mitigation measures incorporated in the conditions of approval. Findings Conditions: 1. All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be complied with. 2. 'All requirements of the Chief Building Official shall be complied with: a. Converting "R" (Residential) to " E " (Educational) occupancy will require additional fire protection in lateral walls as indicated in Chapter 5 and Table 5A of the Uniform Building Code. b. Building must now conform to requirements of Chapter 8 and lateral bracing of the building must be investigated. 5 96 3. All recommendations of the City Traffic Engineer shall become conditions of approval: a. Place stop signs at Baker in addition to Stanley. b. Repaint the existing red curb frontage and. add red curb as shown on attached diagram. C. Prohibit left turns out of the parking lot (right- turn -only sign and marking) . d. Widen the parking lot driveway (by 5 feet on each side).. e. Paint 9 feet of curb red on each side of the driveway.. 4. This project shall be subject to SPARC review pursuant. to Zoning Ordinance Section- 26 -401. The review shall include, but not be limited to, fence design, soundwall design, signs, parking area, landscaping and any changes to the exterior of the buildings. 5. Curb, sidewalk and driveways in the public right -of =way shall be repaired or replaced as necessary, subject to staff review and approval,. 6. Any cobblestone curb requiring" repair shall be replaced with cobblestone.. Any cobblestone" curb requiring removal (in order to widen the driveway) shall be donated to the City. 7. Outdoor play shall be restricted to the hours between 9AM and 5PM. 8. After one year of operation, if complaints are received, an eight foot high soundwall shall 'be provided along the west border of the proposed playground and shall wrap around to both the, Baker Street house and the "existing building" (shown on site plan west of the sandbox). An eight foot high soundwall shall. also be provided along the west border of the existing playground, wrapping around to the existing office shown on - plans. Said soundwall shall also extend from the northwest corner of the playground approximately 75 feet east to the corner of the Stanley 'Street house. `Design of soundwall is subject to SPARC review and approval. 9. Wit one yea o f operation, northwest parking', area (unpaved) shall be improved to City Standards :(paved, curbing, landscaping, striping, etc.) and existing paved parking area shall be restriped. (including the provision of two handicap spaces) , subject to SP ARC review and approval. 10. Existing fencing along the north border of the Stanley Street facility shall be repaired or replaced as needed. Fencing shall be a six foot high solid board type which steps down at the front setback, allowing adequate site distance at the street. Fencing subject to SPARC review and approval.. , 97 11. Landscaping shall be replaced where damaged or dead. Landscaping on the daycare sites, shall be upgraded to an equivalent of that featured around the church building. All landscaping is subject to SPARC review and approval. Additional landscaping shall be provided as follows: a. North of the "hard surface" on the Stanley Street site. b. In the new paved parking area. 12. T4 Ba*eT- Street- 4at --s - 1 -b-e- -merged- Frith- -the - thzrrclr- ProPertY-vr -a parking Ord -somas e�nent -- sir- a��- be- proRric }ems- betaeeir- t}re- twa--iots ; prior If parking on the church property to serve the Baker Street facility ceases use permit for 504 Baker will CD become void. T- 13. As proposed, hours of operation shall be from 7AM to 6PM, Monday co through Friday. 14. No signs may be erected on the site without issuance of a sign permit. All signs must conform to the City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance and are subject to SPARC review. 15. { This use permit shall be valid indefinitely, but the project shall be subject to review after a trial period. At the end of six - months one year the neighbors of the site shall be . renoticed and given an opportunity to present feedback on any problems which have 'developed. The use permit may be reconsidered by the Planning Commission at that time and conditions of approval may be modified. 16. This use permit may be recalled to the Commission at any time for 'review on receipt of complaint or complaints regarding noise, traffic congestion and any other characteristic of the operation. 17. This project shall be subject to pay $150.00 to the City per daily trip end estimated to be created by the project. If the City establishes a major facilities traffic mitigation fee prior to commencement of the use, the fee for this .project shall thereafter be either $150.00 per trip end, or the major facilities traffic mitigation fee, whichever is less. For ,purposes of implementation of this condition., a written agreement shall be executed between applicant and City wherein they agree to pay fees at the end of one year of operation. Said agreement shall allow .reduction of the number of trip ends based on the following: a) number of trips to and from the facility which are incidental to other trips being made by parents of the students, b) number of trip ends reduced by carpooling and /or, c) number of trip ends reduced due to overlap between the preschool and daycare (i.e. children who attend the daycare before and /or after the preschool) . i 18. Project subject to payment of Storm Drainage Mitigation Fees for additional impervious surface areas added (parking lot) . 19. Recreation equipment located in any yard area intended for day use ;shall be kept a minimum distance of five feet from fencing, and shall have a maximum height of eight feet. 7 W_ , IV. NORTH BAY CONSTRUCTION - 43`1 PAYRAN STREET, AP No. 005- 020 -48 and 005= 01 -0 -25, (File No. 1.584). 1. Consideration of EIQ,. 2. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit to allow- expansion of general contractor construction yard. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: John, Barella 2.0 LaCresta - owner/ ap:plicant - concerns regarding Conditions 2,4,5,8,14; willing to do what Commission feels is necessary. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Doyle to direct, staff to prepare and post a negative declaration based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIO:N:ER COMM _ISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER Findings BENNETT - Yes D.OYLE - Yes PARKER SON Yes READ - Yes SOBEL - ABSENT TARR Yes LIBARLE* - Yes a. Due to the developed nature of the existing site, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause 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 major periods of California history or prehistory. b. The project as conditionally approved, does not have the potential to achieve short term to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals C. The project, as conditionally approved, does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly, d. The project, as conditionally approved,. does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. e. The project is consistent with and further promotes the objectives, goals, and policies of the General Plan. 8 r.; R9 A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Read to grant a conditional use permit based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions as follows: COMMISSIONER BENNETT - Yes COMM DOYLE - Yes COMMI_SSION'ER PARKERSON - Yes COMMISSIONER READ - Yes COMMiSSIONER SOB'EL - ABSENT COMMiSSIONER TARR - Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARLE* - Yes f Findings � I 1. The proposed use, subject to the conditions of approval, conforms to the intent and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. 2. As conditionally approved, the proposed use will not constitute a I uisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. E CONDITIONS i Site Specific Conditions I ' 1. All conditions set forth in the previous use permit ()File No. 1.408) shall still apply. 2. Full frontage improvements, including underground utilities, or an in -lieu funding mechanism for these improvements along Lindberg Lane shall be designed and provided in accordance with and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The City Engineer may also require a bond or other mechanism to insure installation will occur in a timely fashion. 3. 'The entire project site shall. be subject to site plan and architectural review according to Section 26 -40.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition to their usual of review, SPARC shall also specifically address parking location:, landscape screening along Lindberg Lane and interior property lines -, and lighting. Detailed landscape plans shall be prepared for SPARC review. 4. Slats shall be inserted into the chain link fencing at the following locations (and where additionally required by SPARC) :. A. Along the entire north facing side where the site abuts a residential lot. b. Along the entire frontage of Lindberg Lane. c. Where the Lindberg Lane site borders the residential parcel at the southwest corner on Lindberg Lane. d. Along the east fence line from Lindberg Lane to the point which I is parallel to rear portion of the residential parcel to the west (164 feet). i 9 100 5. Street:, gutter,, sidewalk and underground infrastructure 'improvements shall be installed in the public right-of.-way of the adjacent residential parcel -to the west, AP No. 005 - 010 -24, or an in -lieu, funding mechanism for these improvements shall be provided, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning Director. A payback agreement. may be created, subject to staff. approval, to reimburse this developer. A bond or other mechanism to insure improvements will be installed in a 6. The project sponsor shall comply with all applicable flood' mitigation requirements adopted„ by the City Council, as contained in. Municipal Code Chapter 17.30 "Storm Drainage Impact Fee." 7. Nine additional parking .spaces shall be provided, improved to City standards. 8. Applicant shall participate on a fair share basis in any future assessment districts or other funding mechanisms formed to improve areawde 'flooding,, traffic congestion or other subregional problems for which development of this property is found to be a contributing factor. 9. Public utility access and easement locations and widths shall be subject to approval . by PG &E, Pacific Bell, SCWA and all other applicable utility and service companies, And the City Engineer and shall be shown on the final map as necessary. 10. All work within a public right -of -way requires an excavation permit from the Department of Public Works. 11. A separate water meter shall be' provided for landscape 'irrigation systems or as required. by staff. 12. All outdoor mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, fire main and all rooftop, equipment shall be fully visually screened upon installation subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. Screening devices shall be shown on construction and/or` landscape plans. 13. Lighting shall conform to Zoning Ordinance performance standards (e.g. no off -site glare) , subject lo' SPARC review and approval. 14. Major Traffic Facilities Improvement Fees: The ,project sponsor shall, prior to issuance of a 'building perm_ it, pay a 'fee of $150.00 per daily trip end estimated to be generated by said project. Trip generation figures shall be as determined, .by the City Engineer. If the City establishes' a Major Facilities Traffic Mitigation Fee prior to issuance of a building permit., the fee for said project shall thereinafter be either $150.00 per trip end or the major facilities traffic mitigation fee, whichever is less. "Project ", in this. case, is only the additions proposed in this permit. 10 • La 15. Proof of on -site drainage and a covering, of a durable, dustless surface on the Lindberg Lane site shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 16. This project shall be subject to the following fees: i a. Community Facilities Development Fee b. Storm Drainage Impact Fee 17. The existing wood storage shack on the Lindberg Lane site shall be reviewed and upgraded as necessary to meet Building Department and Fire Department standards. 18. The site shall be permanently kept free of weed growth as required by 'the Fire Marshal. Conditions from the Fire Marshal 19. Adjust address of project and indicate occupancy group and I onstruction type subject to Fire Marshal approval. 20. A ll vents on the roof of the building to open from the inside only. Conditions from the Police Department f 21. All trees and landscaping to be low and kept' well maintained in the future around the windows and exits.. 22. There should be night lighting on all exit and entry doors as well as windows for the passing officer to have a clear vision of the building. I 23. 'All doors for exit or entry purposes should have no windows in them or far enough away from the lock to prevent breaking the window and gaining entry. 24. All locks and hardware on the doors and windows to be approved by the Fire Department. 25. Parking lot should have adequate lighting for safety of all personnel to satisfaction of Police Department. V. MADRONE VILLAGE - MADRONE LANE AT MAGNOLIA AVENUE, AP NO. 6- 461 -34 and 35, (File No. 3.358A) . 1. Consideration of EIQ . 2. Consideration of amendment to Magnolia Hills PUD (Madrone Village portion) . i The public hearing was opened. 1 SPEAKERS: I John Morgan - Burbank Housing - Answered questions. t 11 102 The public hearing was closed. A .motion was made by Commissioner Tarr: and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to approve a mitigated negative declaration based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER Findings BENNETT - Yes DOYLE - Yes PARKERSON - Yes READ - Yes SOBEL - ABSENT TARR - Yes LIBARLE* - Yes 1. A prior focused generalized initial environmental study has been completed and specific environmental studies have been. °previously completed in the areas ' of traffic and archeological. impacts which revealed, no significant impacts of development which will not be mitigated by conditions of approval of the revised PUD plan. 2. The project complies with the applicable policies of the General Plan and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Potential environmental impacts will be mitigated by conditions of approval of the revised PUD development plan. A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Doyle to: ,recommend approval of the revised development- plan for the Madrone. `Village portion (23 apartment units) of. the Magnolia Hills PUD based on the findings and subject to the conditions as follows:. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIOVER COMMISSIONER Findings BEN:NETT - Yes DOY:LE - Yes PARKERSON - Yes READ - Yes SOBEL - ABSENT TARR - Yes LIBARLE* - Yes 1. The site plan clearly results in a more desirable use of land and better physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning district or combination of zoning. districts. 2. The PUD district . is proposed on a property that has a suitable relationship to one or .more through'fares and that the throughfares are adequate to carry any additional traffic carried by the development has been determined by a focused' traffic study. 3. The plan. for the proposed development presents a unified„ organized arrangement of buildings with appropriate relationship to adjacent and 12 103 nearby properties and that adequate landscaping and /or screening is included to ensure compatibility. 4. The natural and scenic qualities of the site are protected with adequate available public and private spaces designed into the Unit Development Plan. 5. Development of the subject property in the manner proposed by the I pplicant will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interest of the City and will be in keeping with the general intent ,and spirit of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Petaluma and the Petaluma General Plan. i 6. Proposed changes to the Magnolia Hills PUD ( Madrone Village) development plan are in general conformity with the goals and policies I f the Petaluma General Plan. 7. The public necessity, convenience and general welfare clearly permit adoption of the amendment to the Magnolia Hills PUD development plan .for Madrone Village. Recommended Conditions 1. All provisions of the previously adopted Magnolia Hills PUD development plan, except as hereby amended, shall remain in full force and effect, as applicable to the Madrone Village portion. 2. An analysis shall be completed by City Engineering, staff to determine potential traffic impacts created by the project. Project sponsor shall be responsible for implementation of mitigation measures, including contribution toward signalization, as deemed necessary by City staff. f 3. Architectural elevations, landscaping, and other design elements for Madrone Village shall be subject to SPARC review and approval, with emphasis on tree size, staking methods, and provision of evergreen species. Specific design standards adopted as conditions of approval for the PUD amendment shall be incorporated into the plans submitted for SPARC approval. 4. The site plan shall be revised, if deemed necessary by City staff, to relocate units or buildings out of existing utility easement prior to SPARC review of project. 5. All requirements of the Chief Building Inspector, Engineering Department, Fire Marshal and Police Department shall be met prior to issuance of development permits. 4 6. Tenant parking shall be assigned so that one garage space is reserved for each dwelling unit, and visitor parking restricted to uncovered I paces. Parking areas shall be appropriately marked, subject to staff review and approval. I 7. Each unit shall be provided with an address which is illuminated and clearly visible from interior walkways within the complex. Address 13 104 assignments •shall correspond with appropriate access drives to encourage efficiency in locating individual units, and shall be subject to City staff review and approval. Directories shall be= provided at the north and south entrances to the complex. Design and placement subject to SPARC review and approval. 8. Exterior lighting plans shall be submitted specifying location and design of all proposed fixtures', subject to staff review and approval. 9. No on -site storage or repair of recreational vehicles, trailers;, boats or inoperable motor vehicles shall be permitted within the complex. 10. The project sponsor shall participate on a fair share 'basis in any future assessment districts or other funding mechanisms formed to `improve traffic congestion for which development of this property is found to be a contributing factor. Calculations for traffic generation data shall reflect the low- income status of these units. r 11. This project shall be subject to imposition of all applicable development fees, including, but. not, limited to, water and sewer connection fees, storm. drainage impact fees, dwelling construction fees, park and recreation. land improvement fees, and school facilities fees. Fees are calculated and must be paid on a basis established by Resolution of the City Council. V. GENERAL DI'SCUSSIO:N (if time allows) : late hour. 1. Child Care Standards. 2. Traffic Mitigation Fees. 3. Tree Ordinance. 4. Treatment, improvement. of creeks. 5. Streetscape. 6. Fences. 7. Historic districts. 8. View Corridors. ADJOURNMENT: 11:20 PM. ATTEST Warren Salmons, Director, Community Development and Planning No discussion was held due to 14