REGULAR MEETING OF THE MARIN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2006

Transcription

1 REGULAR MEETING OF THE MARIN COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2006 ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: Hank Barner, Don Dickenson, Mark Ginalski, Randy Greenberg, Wade Holland, Steve Thompson Jo Julin Alex Hinds, Brian Crawford, David Zaltsman, Tom Lai, Curtis Havel, David Hansen, Kim Shine 1. INITIAL TRANSACTIONS a. Incorporate Staff Reports into the Minutes M/s Ginalski/Holland to incorporate the staff reports into the Minutes. Motion carried 6/0 (Commissioner Julin absent). b. Continuances Chairman Dickenson noted that the Commission received a memorandum from staff recommending the continuation of Item 6, the Zerull Use Permit and Design Review Appeal, to the meeting of March 13, M/s Holland/Ginalski to continue the Zerull Use Permit and Design Review Appeal to the meeting of March 13, Motion carried 6/0 (Commissioner Julin absent). c. Approval of Minutes January 23, 2006 M/s Holland/Barner to approve the Minutes of January 23, 2006, as amended. Motion carried 4/0/2 (Commissioners Ginalski and Thompson abstained; Commissioner Julin absent). d. Ratification of the Resolution Upholding the Davis et al. Appeal and Denying the Rosenberg Use Permit and Design Review, 100 Manzanita Avenue, Novato, Assessor s Parcel M/s Holland/Ginalski to adopt the resolution sustaining the Davis et al. Appeal and Denying the Rosenberg/MetroPCS Use Permit and Design Review. Motion carried 4/1/1 (Commissioner Dickenson dissenting, Commissioner Barner abstaining, and Commissioner Julin absent). 2. COMMUNICATIONS The Commission acknowledged receipt of several pieces of correspondence for their review. 3. DIRECTOR S REPORT Director Alex Hinds gave his report to the Commission regarding the following Board of Supervisors items: Targeted Industries Study Page 1

2 Request for approval of up to 50% fee reduction for certain types of permits directly related to storm damage that took place during December 2005/January 2006 Request for adoption of the Urban Environmental Accords Request to amend EIR contract for Countywide Plan to add additional analysis for traffic and water use Deputy Director Crawford reported to the Commission regarding the CDA Organizational Assessment. 4. OPEN TIME FOR PUBLIC EXPRESSION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA No member of the audience requested to speak. 5. FUTURE AGENDA DISCUSSION ITEMS/FIELD TRIPS February 27, 2006 Mease/Salah Neg Dec/Master Plan Waiver Request, Land Division, Precise Development Plan and Design Review March 13, 2006 Zerull Use Permit and Design Review Appeal Las Cumbres Master Plan and Tentative Map Application (will require an additional site visit) March 27, 2006 (Marin Exhibition Hall Friends of Marin Room) Murray Design Review/Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Development Code Revisions 6. ZERULL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW APPEAL Continued public hearing to consider the Zerull Appeal of the Deputy Zoning Administrator s denial of the Zerull Use Permit and Design Review applications to construct a two-story, 3,321 square foot detached accessory structure on an approximately 1.4-acre lot within the Bayside Acres Subdivision, San Rafael. The proposed detached accessory structure would have a maximum height of 28 feet. In summary, the appellant sets forth the following bases of appeal: (1) the Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines should not apply to the project since it was accepted as complete before the adoption of said guidelines; (2) neither staff nor the Deputy Zoning Administrator provided the Zerull s with an opportunity to modify the proposed project; (3) the findings denying the application are subjective in nature and not based on factual information; and (4) the project is not visually prominent from off-site locations and is not incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood because the denial does not take into account the size and configuration of the subject property with respect to other properties in the area. The subject property is located at 233 Bayview Drive, San Rafael, and is further identified as Assessor's Parcels and 07. This item was continued from the meeting of November 28, 2005, and is further continued to the meeting of March 13, Page 2

3 7A. DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 7B. MASTER PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN: MT. TAMALPAIS CEMETERY Continued public hearing to consider the Mt. Tamalpais Cemetery Master Plan and Development Plan application for construction of 26 new mausoleums, conversion of an existing chapel into crypts, construction of a two-story addition to the existing office, which will be used by the County Coroner for morgue-related activities, repair of existing access roads and construction of a one-story addition to the existing Chapel of Memories. The Master Plan would extend for a period of 50 years with the anticipated construction of a new mausoleum occurring every 2 to 3 years. The greatest concentration of mausoleums would be located in the vicinity of the existing mausoleums between Ray Court (public right-of-way) and Tamalpais Avenue (private access road within the cemetery). The project architect has indicated the first phase of the project would be the construction of 2 mausoleums along the upper portion of Lakeview Avenue. Phase two would consist of the office building additions, new parking lot, and garage. The next phase would be to cover the existing chapel area within the Chapel of the Lights Mausoleum into additional crypts and niches. Phases four and five of the project would include the ongoing build-out of mausoleums and improvements of existing access roads. The project also includes future annexation to the San Rafael Sanitation District to formalize an existing sewer connection. The subject property (Assessor s Parcel ) is located at 2500 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael. Staff made a presentation to the Commission and recommended that the Commission review the administrative record, conduct a public hearing, and adopt the proposed resolutions recommending adoption of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and recommending approval of the Marin County Cemetery Company (Mount Tamalpais Cemetery and Mortuary) Master Plan and Precise Development Plan to the Marin County Board of Supervisors. Staff answered questions from the Commission regarding the unauthorized hookup to the San Rafael sewer district; trail easements; the issue of dual annexation of the site with the City of San Rafael; fire safety; drainage on the site and how it might be affected by additional impervious surfaces; proposed hours for construction vehicles; landscaping and water use; number of employees on site; frequency of police calls to the site; the height of the office facility and chapel; onsite parking and overflow parking on Fifth Avenue; who would pay for the proposed morgue facility; public access through and use of the cemetery grounds; and the issue of the County morgue being located at the site. In response to a question from Commissioner Holland about fire safety, Scott Alber, Fire Marshall of the Marin County Fire Department, told the Commission that the City of San Rafael would be the first responder to the site if there were a fire. He said he had spoken to Fire Inspector Steve Riggs of the San Rafael Fire Department who agreed that if the existing hydrant on Ray Court adjacent to the complex were upgraded and connected to the existing 8 main, water would flow at 600 gallons/minute, which would meet the fire department s minimum requirement. Fire Marshall Alber stated that he was comfortable with the hose lay distance of 450 from the hydrant, and noted that the building would have a sprinkler system. He further stated that because of the low number of occupants at the site and the character of the roads, he was comfortable with access to the site. He also noted that because of the adjacent open space, Page 3

4 he was satisfied with vegetation management around the site. Commissioner Holland asked the Fire Marshall to coordinate with staff to finalize conditions of approval to address fire issues, and Commissioner Barner added that with the addition of new mausoleums, there should be a condition of approval for additional defensible space between the new mausoleums and surrounding vegetation. The public hearing was opened. Buck Kamphausen, applicant, owner of the Mt. Tamalpais Cemetery and Mortuary, presented a short history of his cemetery and the mortuary industry. He told the Commission that plans had changed and now three proposed new mausoleums would be eliminated from the application. He also indicated that the new mausoleums near Ray Court would be the last to be built. In terms of locating the County morgue on the site, he told the Commission that since 1982 the cemetery had provided up to 50% room and services for the County Coroner. He responded to questions which had been raised regarding traffic, water use, drainage, parking, fire safety, frequency of police calls to the site, traffic mitigation fees, responsibility for repairing any earthquake damage, construction noise and scheduling, and his objection to using the fire road to access open space. County Coroner Ken Holmes addressed the Commission to say that the cost of the building construction would be borne by the cemetery, although the County would have some expense for specific buildout inside. He also said that the cost for the County to rent commercial space at the cemetery would be negotiated after construction was completed. Commissioner Barner noted that the coroner was similar to a co-applicant for this proposal, and more information was needed from the coroner about his mode of operation. Chairman Dickenson noted that the location of the morgue on this property required budgetary approval from the Board of Supervisors. Coroner Holmes said the project had been budgeted in concept by the Board. The Commission took a short break and then resumed the hearing. John McLean, attorney for the applicant and also speaking on behalf of A.J. Moore, architect, addressed the Commission regarding water use and flow, landscaping, drainage, the height of the office building and chapel, the undocumented hookup to the San Rafael sewer district, traffic mitigation fees, cemetery finances, and using public trails to access open space. Bob Brown, Community Development Director for the City of San Rafael, addressed his comments to the Commission, stating that the overall master plan does not conflict with the city s land use policies; the use permit should clearly define what is not allowed; there would be no public access to the morgue and only two county employees at the site; the coroner s office would not be located at the cemetery site; any emergency morgue would not be located at the cemetery site; the applicant should pay the traffic impact fee and the street resurfacing fee to the City of San Rafael because the property is accessed only by city streets; the cemetery should annex and pay connection fees to the San Rafael Sanitation District, and connection to the San Page 4

5 Rafael Sanitation District would require participation in an improvement project to provide additional sewer capacity; the use of mechanical irrigation equipment, which is noisy and inefficient, should not be allowed in the early morning and evening hours within a specified distance of the adjacent residential property lines; the surface watering of the site is inefficient and the applicant should be required to go through a Marin Municipal Water District water audit for existing operations; the possible loss of pedestrian and cyclist access to the ridge; and the participation of the City of San Rafael in easement discussions. The following people spoke in opposition to the project, raising the following concerns: The hearing should be continued to allow additional time to address issues of drainage, location, public access to open space, aesthetics of the chapel and office building, the last minute change in the application, and duel annexation; the project would have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood; the location of the mausoleums should be further studied; traffic analysis should be done; some neighbors were not notified of the hearing; location of a county facility (morgue) on a private funeral home s property is unfair competition; the neighbors don t feel protected, as they are residents of San Rafael, but are being impacted by a county project; there should be an evening meeting so that more people could attend; conditions of landscape screening and maintenance should be periodically reviewed; there is an absence of substantial information from the coroner; the health department should be consulted regarding possible toxic chemicals being used in the morgue; and the morgue should be located in a central location along the Highway 101 corridor. Gayle Mills, 262 Alpine Street, Co-Chair of the Sun Valley Neighborhood Association George Mills, 262 Alpine Street, Co-Chair of the Sun Valley Neighborhood Association Robert Rossi, 2451 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael Paul Ingels, 30 Shannon Lane, San Rafael Charles Monte, 330 Redhill Avenue, San Anselmo Gayle Noah, 2413 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael Margie Sikes, 258 Alpine Street, San Rafael Katlyn Stranger, 2450 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael Doris Law Bagley, 592 Fairhills Drive, San Rafael Howard Hill, 31 Ray Court, San Rafael Francis Conway, 20 Sirard Lane, San Rafael Patricia Conway, 20 Sirard Lane, San Rafael Lucey, 84 Crestwood Drive, San Rafael Note: Donna Lemmon, 33 Ridgewood Drive, San Rafael, submitted a testimony card in support of the proposed expansions and trail plans, noting that the cemetery has been sympathetic and empathetic to community concerns over the years; cemetery management has been patient with the dog walkers and bicyclists; and the buildings are tasteful and historic. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Greenberg said that her primary concern was the issue of dual annexation, and said that the City of San Rafael should hold a public hearing to discuss the issue. She indicated that she was comfortable with the expansion of structures associated with interment and she was Page 5

6 satisfied that traffic impacts could be mitigated. She said that she supported a centralized location for the morgue, and questioned why other locations were excluded. She also stated that there were many additional details of concern to her, including visual impacts, the color of materials used, and the timeline for road improvements. Chairman Dickenson agreed with Commissioner Greenberg that the issue of dual annexation had to be addressed. He said that the only access to the site is across city streets, all impacted residential properties are within the city limits of San Rafael, and police and fire response would be from San Rafael, and further stated that the Commission should request the City of San Rafael to formally provide to the Commission their decision regarding dual annexation. In addition, he indicated that further issues need to be resolved, including trail access; drainage, particularly as it affects the creek along Ray Court; whether this is the appropriate location of the morgue; concern about the size and visual impact of the proposed new chapel building; and the need for landscaping to screen the two proposed mausoleums perpendicular to Ray Court. Depending on the City s decision regarding dual annexation, he stated that he would need more information on these issues in order to make an informed decision on the application. Commissioner Ginalski agreed with Chairman Dickenson and Commissioner Greenberg about the need to determine the dual annexation issue, and suggested that the Commission send a message to the City Council of San Rafael to agendize this matter for discussion as to whether or not they want to annex this project. He indicated that it would not be appropriate to base the decision on dual annexation on cash flow, noting that the purpose of government is to make sure that the residents within a particular sphere of influence are protected. He said that the City of San Rafael should be active participants in the process and provide a resolution regarding the dual annexation, and that he would be in favor of a continuance for this reason. Commissioner Holland agreed with Dickenson, Greenberg, and Ginalski about the dual annexation issue. He indicated that he would not make a recommendation on the application until that issue had been resolved, and suggested that a motion to continue include a direction to the San Rafael City Council to address the dual annexation issue. He also expressed reservations about whether locating the morgue at the cemetery was a good idea politically, and emphasized that all conditions of approval in a final resolution must be precisely and clearly stated. Commissioner Barner agreed that the question of dual annexation must be answered before the application could move forward. He assured the neighbors that their interests are the Commission s interests, whether they reside in the city or county. He noted his concern that the Initial Study did not analyze the application with the morgue as a key component to the application and did not take into account the impact on the neighbors. He said that the Initial Study also did not adequately address water runoff, the use of potable water for landscaping, traffic and parking impacts, and hazards, and therefore it was premature to make a decision on the matter. Commissioner Thompson said there were problems with all three components of the application, i.e., the Negative Declaration, the Master Plan, and the Precise Development Plan. At the Negative Declaration level, he opined that the drainage issue should be re-examined. He also stated that he wanted to go through the traffic projections and that open space access needed to Page 6

7 be better understood. He noted that changes to the Master Plan were suggested by the applicant today and are not reflected in any of the plans provided to the Commission; therefore, a Precise Development Plan was completely inappropriate at this time. The issue of the chapel building height is not well understood or represented accurately. He voiced his support to make a specific request to the City of San Rafael regarding the dual annexation issue, and also suggested that a specific request to the Board of Supervisors regarding the choice of location for the morgue might be a good idea. He said that the morgue location did not make sense to him, and noted that the idea that the proposed location was distant from a residential neighborhood was not true. He also questioned the proposed location for the chapel in terms of traffic and parking spillover onto residential streets. He said he supported the direction the Commission was taking regarding resolving the issue of dual annexation and voiced his hope that the issue would be decided expeditiously. M/s Dickenson/Ginalski to continue the public hearing on the Mt. Tamalpais Cemetery Master Plan and Precise Development Plan to April 10, 2006, and that a request be made to the City of San Rafael for a formal written determination from the City Council as to whether they want to exercise or waive their right of first review under LAFCO and the Countywide Plan dual annexation policies. Depending on that response from the City, before the item comes back to the Planning Commission for consideration, the issues raised by the individual Commissioners should be addressed. Commissioner Barner noted that occasionally there have been variations regarding dual annexation, and Commissioner Holland expressed his desire that such a variation not be made for this project because he does not think a hybrid approach would be a good idea under these circumstances. Bob Brown, Community Development Director for the City of San Rafael, told the Commission that, given the amount of work the city has in process, the timeframe for the dual annexation decision would be measured in months. The applicant expressed his dismay at the delay and stated his intent to withdraw the application. Director Hinds expressed his concern that the Commission should proceed with all due speed to come to a decision, noting that the applicant and the concerned residents had a reasonable expectation for a decision to be made in a timely timeframe. He reminded the Commission and members of the audience that the Master Plan would ultimately be sent to the Board of Supervisors. Deputy Director Crawford spoke of the need to clarify with the applicant whether the application would, in fact, be withdrawn, in which case the matter would not be sent to the Board. The motion carried 6/0 (Commissioner Julin absent). The Commission adjourned at 5:55 p.m. Page 7