Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/10/1987In l PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION February 10, 1987 REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, 7 :30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIF. The Planning Commission encourages applicants or their representative to be available at the meeting to answer questions so that no agenda item need be deferred to a later date due to a lack of pertinent information. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bennett, Davis, Head, Libarle, Parkerson, Read, Tarr COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. STAFF: Warren Salmons, Planning Director Pamela Tuft, Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter, Associate Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of January 27, 1987 were approved as printed. PUBLIC COMMENT (15 minutes maximum). The Planning Commission will hear public comments only on matters over which they have jurisdiction. There will be no Commission discussion. The Chairman. will. allot no more than five minutes to any individual. If more than three persons wish to speak, their time will be allotted so that the total amount of time allocated to this agenda item will be 15 minutes. There was no public comment. CORRESPONDENCE One letter was distributed pertaining to a Council matter. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Growth Management Meeting - Technical Rating discussion only. 2. Corona /Ely Status - To be finalized on the 17th. 3. General Plan Status 4. Council/ Commission Joint Meeting - Council asks for other joint session discussion items - to be placed on next Planning Commission meeting agenda. 1 155 5. :Budget and 1987 -88 Goals - Council has developed goals but they are 'not in final format - will be brought in later. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT 1, Rules of Order. Bob Carpenter - 518 Orchard Lane - Spoke against project because of flooding and drainage; lack of consideration for neighbors; traffic ;problems created by existing projects; Willow Brook Diversion and Denman Reservoir must be built if Redwood Business Park is built. Gene; Feickert - 477 Orchard Lane - Spoke against project because of flooding - "Orchard and Denman are underwater (four feet) during : flooding". The public hearing was closed with regard to the EIR only. A motion was made by Commissioner Libarle and seconded by Commissioner Davis to recommend to the City Council certification of the EIR based on the findings listed in the staff report. COMMISSIONER BENNETT - Aye COMMaISSIONER DAVIS - Aye COMMISSIONER HEAD - Abstain - (was not in attendance at last meeting and was unable to listen to tape.) COMMISSIONER LIBARLE - Aye COMMISSIONER PARKERSON - Aye COMMISSIONER READ - Ave 2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING I. !G &W MANAGEMENT, INC., REDWOOD BUSINESS PARK II, NORTHWEST ❑ CORNER OF 101 HIGHWAY AND REDWOOD HIGHWAY, AP NO's 047- 211 - ±1, 20 and 22 and 007 - 421 -07 and 08, (Files 3.354, 6.793, o ,8.102, 11.857). ❑ 1. Continued consideration of Draft EIR and storm water detention plan. ❑ t. 2. Continued consideration of certain aspects of project leading towards prezone, rezone, annexation and subdivision of 74.4 acres, including approximately 35.4 acres which are north of Willow Creek Park and 'outside incorporated City Limits. Continued from January 27, 1987. Commissioner Bennett explained that he had reviewed tapes and materials on this matter and may now vote. The public hearing was continued. SPEAKERS: Bob Carpenter - 518 Orchard Lane - Spoke against project because of flooding and drainage; lack of consideration for neighbors; traffic ;problems created by existing projects; Willow Brook Diversion and Denman Reservoir must be built if Redwood Business Park is built. Gene; Feickert - 477 Orchard Lane - Spoke against project because of flooding - "Orchard and Denman are underwater (four feet) during : flooding". The public hearing was closed with regard to the EIR only. A motion was made by Commissioner Libarle and seconded by Commissioner Davis to recommend to the City Council certification of the EIR based on the findings listed in the staff report. COMMISSIONER BENNETT - Aye COMMaISSIONER DAVIS - Aye COMMISSIONER HEAD - Abstain - (was not in attendance at last meeting and was unable to listen to tape.) COMMISSIONER LIBARLE - Aye COMMISSIONER PARKERSON - Aye COMMISSIONER READ - Ave 2 156 COMMISSIONER TARR - Aye Findings 1. The Environmental Impact Report for the Redwood Business Park II adequately evaluates the project's impact upon the environment and has been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and in accordance with the Guidelines for Implementation of said Act prescribed by the State of California Secretary of Resources and with the Local Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act adopted by the Council of the City of Petaluma. 2. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information in said Environmental Impact Report; and that qualified consultants have prepared the Final Environmental Impact Report; and the Planning Commission has reviewed the environmental documents applicable to the recommended project prior to approving Redwood Business Park II. 3. The Environmental Impact Report adequately describes possible alternatives to the proposed project, as well as all significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. 4. The Environmental Impact Report adequately describes the cumulative long -term and growth inducing effects of the proposed project which might adversely affect the site of the environment. 5. The Environmental Impact Report for the project includes a thorough review of potentially significant adverse environmental effects and proposes mitigation measures to lessen or eliminate said effects. Said effects, the requisite findings and explanation of the rationale for each finding pursuant to Section 15091 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines as amended, and the mitigation measures required of the project to substantially lessen or eliminate said effects may be further reviewed, discussed, and adopted as necessary for certain uses or activities that may cause significant adverse effect to the environment outside the scope of this EIR at such time as the project receives development approval. Said review shall be based on the information. contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report and on information gathered at appropriate public hearings. A consensus was reached to continue this public hearing to the March 10, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. II. CITY OF PETALUMA /MOPA, PETALUMA MARINA /OFFICE COMPLEX, AP NO. 005 - 060 -24, 27 and 28 (File 3.351) . Continued from January 31, 1987. The public hearing was opened (there were no speakers) and continued to the February 24, 1987 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the applicant. 157 PUBLIC HEARINGS III. HELEN F. KING, 1400 "I" STREET EXTENSION, AP NO. 019 - 201 -17, (File 3.364). 1. Consideration of EIQ. 2. Consideration of prezoning 3.81 acres to R -1, 10,000. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: co q q Bob Buell - 625 Jonas Lane - Concerns regarding flooding; drainage; ® distributed copy of drainage report prepared by civil engineer to ® staff. Helene King - 1400 I Street (applicant) - Answered questions, is aware of drainage problem. Dan Priedo - 25 Adams Lane - Drainage concerns, described flooding on King property. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Read and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to recommend to the City Council that, subsequent to adoption of the proposed General Plan, a negative declaration be approved based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER BENNETT - Aye COMMISSIONER DAVIS - Aye COMMISSIONER HEAD - Aye COMMISSIONER LIBARLE - Aye COMMISSIONER PARKERSON - Aye COMMISSIONER READ - Aye COMMISSIONER TARR - Aye Findings 1. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable provisions of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The prezoning leading to a annexation is consistent with applicable State Law (Government Code 35012) and Sonoma County LAFCO. 3. An Initial Study has been prepared and has determined that anticipated minor adverse impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated through incorporation of specific mitigation measures at time of project site development. 4. The project will not necessarily trigger growth - inducing impacts due to existing development on the adjacent properties and development restrictions as contained in current City policies. 4 15S A motion was made by Commissioner Davis and seconded by Commissioner Head to recommend to the City Council (subsequent to the adoption of the proposed General Plan) that 1400 "I" Street be prezoned to R -1, 10,000 based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER BENNETT Aye DAVIS - Aye HEAD - Aye LIBARLE - Aye PARKERSON - Aye READ - Aye TARR - Aye Finding s 1. The prezoning is in the best interest of the City of Petaluma. 2. The prezoning shall not constitute an expansion of the existing Sphere of Influence or water service boundary line. 3. That the proposed prezoning is in general conformity with the Petaluma General Plan. 4. That the public necessity, convenience and general welfare require or clearly permit the adoption of the proposed prezoning. IV. BILLIE D. ERKEL, 10 KELLER STREET, AP NO. 008 - 051 -05 (File 1.522). 1. Consideration of EIQ. 2. Consideration of use permit for a bed and breakfast inn. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Don Leeper - applicant representative - answered questions regarding project. Marsha Maleske - 256A Douglas St. - Petaluma Main Street project coordinator - spoke in favor of project. Cristie Heller - 10 Liberty Street - Spoke in support of project (neighbor) . The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Head to direct Planning staff to prepare and post a negative declaration based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER BENNETT - Aye COMMISSIONER DAVIS - Aye 159 4. The environmental effects of this use as conditionally approved will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. A motion was made by Commissioner Head and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to grant a use permit based on the findings and subject to the conditions as follows: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER HEAD - Aye COMMISSIONER DAVIS - Aye COMMISSIONER LIBARLE - Aye HEAD - Aye COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER PARKERSON - Aye COMMISSIONER PARKERSON - Aye COMMISSIONER READ - Aye READ - Aye COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER TARR - Aye Findings 1. The use as conditionally approved, does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment or eliminate 'important examples of the major periods of California history or c prehistory. O 0 2. The use as conditionally approved, does not have the potential to ' achieve short -term environmental goals to the disadvantage of ;long -term environmental goals. 0 Q 3. The use as conditionally approved, does not have possible environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. 4. The environmental effects of this use as conditionally approved will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. A motion was made by Commissioner Head and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to grant a use permit based on the findings and subject to the conditions as follows: COMMISSIONER BENNETT - Aye COMMISSIONER DAVIS - Aye COMMISSIONER HEAD - Aye COMMISSIONER LIBARLE - Aye COMMISSIONER PARKERSON - Aye COMMISSIONER READ - Aye COMMISSIONER TARR - Aye Findings 1. The proposed use, subject to the following conditions, will conform to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and policies of the General Plan/EDP. 2. The proposed use, subject to the following conditions, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Conditions 1. Operation of the bed and breakfast inn shall be limited to the 'provision of five (5) guestrooms and shall comply with mandatory ;operating conditions, as follows: a. The inn owner or manager must reside at the inn. N I ! b. Fire and life safety requirements may be imposed as a condition of occupancy approval including requirements for installation of approved smoke detectors in each guest room, the installation of a fire extinguisher at the inn, the posting of an evacuation plan in each guest room, or an approved fire sprinkler system. Requirements for the conversion of occupancy as required by the Fire Marshal and Building Inspector shall be met prior to commencement of use. C. The inn owner shall obtain any the following required Sonoma County Health Department approvals prior to the commencement of the use: 1. Submit floor plan of proposed kitchen f County Health Department for approval T to Sonoma 2. Submit complete plans for swimming pool and /or spa if they are to be part of the project 3. Obtain a Sonoma County Food Industry Permit prior to operating d. No accessory use of the inn is permitted except as specifically authorized in the use permit. For purposes of this section an accessory use of an inn is any commercial use of the inn other than the renting of guest rooms and provisions of one meal per day to guests. Accessory uses include but are not limited to use of the inn for conferences, weddings, fundraisers and similar events attended by non - guests. The use permit may allow such accessory uses of the inn subject to restrictions, including but not limited to the frequency and timing of accessory uses, the maximum number of persons who can attend an event, and the provision of additional off - street parking, subject to additional review by the Planning Commission. e. City Departments may periodically conduct an inspection of the inn during regular business hours to determine compliance with use permit conditions, the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances and laws they administer. A warrant shall be obtained when required by law. 2. All exterior modifications, demolition and /or additions (including fences and signs) shall be subject to review and approval of the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee prior to commencement of use. 3. Curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be replaced and /or repaired along the parcel frontage, subject to review and approval of City Engineer. 4. Street trees shall be provided along the parcel frontage, subject to Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee review and approval. 5. Conversion of overhead utilities to underground for both structures shall be completed in conjunction with the improvements of the Keller Street Underground District. 7 161 6. ;Front yard fencing and landscaping shall be provided along both structures, subject to Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee review and approval. 7. #8 Keller Street shall remain a single family residential unit. 8. This property shall begin financial participation in the Parking Assessment District, as determined by the City Manager, commencing with change of use V. tBARBARA's BAKERY INCORPORATED, 3900 CYPRESS DRIVE, I OAKMEAD NORTHBAY, AP No. 005 - 090 -64 (File 1.520) . 0- 1. Consideration of EIQ. ® 2. 'Consideration of Use Permit for a bakery facility. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Bob Gianini - project architect - Answered questions. Gil Pritchard - President, Barbara's Bakery - Answered questions regarding 'choice of Petaluma as a site. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Davis and seconded by Commissioner Libarle to direct staff to prepare a Negative Declaration based on the following findings: CQMMISSIONER BENNETT - Aye COMMISSIONER DAVIS - Aye COMMISSIONER HEAD - Aye COMAr1ISSIONER LIBARLE - Aye COMMISSIONER PARKERSON - Aye COMMISSIONER READ - Aye COMMISSIONER TARR_ - Aye Findings a. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife ospecies, 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. b. The project as conditionally approved, does not have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental :goals. D 162 c. The project as conditionally approved, does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. d. The project, as conditionally approved, does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. A motion was made by Commissioner Read and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to grant the use permit based on the findings and subject to the conditions as follows: COMMISSIONER BENNETT - Aye COMMISSIONER DAVIS - Aye COMMISSIONER HEAD - Aye COMMISSIONER LIBARLE - Aye COMMISSIONER PARKERSON - Aye COMMISSIONER READ - Aye COMMISSIONER TARR - Aye Findings 1. The proposed use, subject to the conditions of approval, conforms to the intent and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan /EDP. 2. This project 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. Project Specific Conditions 1. A lot merger shall occur between the two lots proposed for the project prior to the issuance of any building permit. 2. This project is subject to SPARC review, with special emphasis on the following: - Landscaping shall be upgraded to include either more trees or substitution of specimen size for 15- gallon trees. - Architecture shall be improved to provide more visual relief on all elevations such as stepping back the building, increased number of windows, addition of awnings, more intensive trim treatment, etc. 3.. Any future warehouse expansion shall be subject to SPARC approval. Applicable Standard Conditions 4. This use permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review at any time due to complaints regarding traffic congestion, noise generation or other operating characteristics. At such time the Commission may repeal the use permit or add modified conditions of approval. 9 5. No signs may be erected on the site without issuance of a sign permit. 6. There shall be no open storage of equipment, materials, trash, litter, pallets, packaging or containers. 7. This property shall participate in any future benefit assessment district for Lakeville Highway corridor improvements. 8. All landscaping must conform to the Master Plan for Oakmead Northbay Industrial Park, subject to SPARC review and approval. 12. All requirements of the City Fire Marshal shall be complied with. 13. Excavating permit shall be obtained, subject to review and approval of City Engineer. 14. Project shall be subject to review and approval of City Industrial Waste =t Inspector, prior to issuance of building permit. VI. CITY OF PETALUMA 1. Consideration of possible revisions to sections of Zoning Ordinance related to FEMA floodplain regulations update. The p ublic hearing was opened and continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 24, 1987. PLANNING MATTER VII. S_OUSA SUBDIVISION UNITS 2 and 3, MAGNOLIA AVENUE. 1. Consideration of Tentative Map Extension to extend life of tentative map one year to March 4, 1988. This item was not a public hearing, however, the following people spoke: Gordon White - 752 Paula Lane - Concerns regarding drainage, flooding. Rosena Metcaff - 731 Paula Lane - Where will Paula Lane end. Dennis Metcaff - 731 Paula Lane - Questions regarding extension of Paula 163 K( 9. The project shall be subject to Storm Drainage Fees as required by M unicipal Code. 00 i Q 10. All on -site drainage systems are subject to approval by the City ® Engineer and Envirotech to insure that no inordinate or unacceptable amount of materials or rain water enter the waste water treatment plant. 11. A sewer use permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit, as required by Municipal Code Section 15.56. 12. All requirements of the City Fire Marshal shall be complied with. 13. Excavating permit shall be obtained, subject to review and approval of City Engineer. 14. Project shall be subject to review and approval of City Industrial Waste =t Inspector, prior to issuance of building permit. VI. CITY OF PETALUMA 1. Consideration of possible revisions to sections of Zoning Ordinance related to FEMA floodplain regulations update. The p ublic hearing was opened and continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of February 24, 1987. PLANNING MATTER VII. S_OUSA SUBDIVISION UNITS 2 and 3, MAGNOLIA AVENUE. 1. Consideration of Tentative Map Extension to extend life of tentative map one year to March 4, 1988. This item was not a public hearing, however, the following people spoke: Gordon White - 752 Paula Lane - Concerns regarding drainage, flooding. Rosena Metcaff - 731 Paula Lane - Where will Paula Lane end. Dennis Metcaff - 731 Paula Lane - Questions regarding extension of Paula 163 K( Lane. A motion was made by Commissioner Head and seconded by Commissioner Libarle to extend the Tentative Map for Sousa Subdivision Units 2 & 3 through March 4, 1988 continuing the original City Council findings and conditions. COMMISSIONER BENNETT - Aye COMMISSIONER DAVIS - Aye COMMISSIONER HEAD - Aye COMMISSIONER LIBARLE - Aye COMMISSIONER PARKERSON - Aye COMMISSIONER READ - Aye COMMISSIONER TARR - Aye The Commission applauded Commissioner Parkerson for his artwork featured in the "A" Street Historic District - Preservation Guidelines and Standards Commissioner Tarr brought up the following problems he had noticed recently: - Sandwich board signs (Rose City Gas) - Trailer at Ferrari's (Quality Inn) - Mufflers at Midas are stacked up ADJOURNMENT: 9:55 PM to Special Meeting of February 18, 1987, 7:00 PM, ( Senior Center). 1 11