Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report Item 5.A 9/9/2013 - Staff Report through Attachment 5 Age/flaw Ite/wv #5 .A •�e Lv41; y�eefe,.YA \n 85$ DATE:. September 9, 2013 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Heather Hines, Planning Manager I of SUBJECT: Resolutions Denying a General Plan Amendment and Denying the Appeal submitted and upholding the Planning.Commission's denial of a Zoning Map Amendment for the Lynch Creek Plaza Project located at the southwest corner of Lynch Creek Way and McDowell Boulevard RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council consider the staff report, hear from the applicant, conduct the public hearing and adopt the following resolutions: • Resolution Denying a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Business Park to Mixed Use for the Lynch Creek Plaza project located at the southwest comer of Lynch Creek Way and North McDowell Boulevard (Attachment 1); and • Resolution Denying the appeal submitted by Browman Development and upholding the Planning Commission's denial of a Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning from Business Park (BP) to MU lB for the Lynch Creek Plaza project located at the southwest corner of Lynch Creek Way and North McDowell Boulevard (Attachment 2). Should the Council decide to approve the General Plan Amendment and approve the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the Zoning Map Amendment, the Council may direct staff to return with revised resolutions. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission considered the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, preliminary Site Plan and Architectural Review,;and the associated environmental document for the Lynch Creek Plaza project at a noticed public hearing on May 28, 2013 and at a continued public hearing on July 9,2013. At the May 28th hearing, the Planning Commission approved a resolution finding General Plan consistency for the Vacation of a Non-Access Easement along the project site's North McDowell frontage. At the July 9th hearing, the Commission.approved resolutions recommending the City Council deny the General Plan Agenda Review: City Attorn Finance Dir, tor_ City Manager— Amendment (3-2-1 vote) and denying the Zoning Map Amendment (3-2-1 vote) for the project site. General Plan Amendment As outlined in the Planning Commission resolution(Attachment 4),the Commission's recommendation for denial of the proposed General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the approximately 2.15 acre project site located at the southwest corner of Lynch Creek and North McDowell from Business Park to Mixed Use was based on the following findings: • The existing Business Park designation is consistent with the designation and current use of properties in the surrounding Lynch Creek Way neighborhood and compatible with the Petaluma Hospital on the east side of North McDowell Boulevard. Availability of land designated Business Park is limited and this concentration of Business Park property provides a unique opportunity for medical office, research and development facilities, and light industrial uses; • There is not a compelling reason to modify the General Plan land use designation from Business Park; • The record does not provide adequate evidence that vacancy rates or economic conditions necessitate a change in the general plan land use designation; and • There is no assurance that overlapping Business Park uses such as medical office, research and development, or similar light industrial uses will be incorporated on the project site. Zoning Map Amendment As outlined in the Planning Commission resolution(Attachment 5), the Commission's denial of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning of the project site from BP (Business Park) to MU1B (Mixed Use) similar to current zoning on the adjacent Deer Creek Village parcel to the west was based on the following findings: • The proposed amendment to the Implementing Zoning Ordinance to rezone the subject property from BP (Business Park)to MU1B (Mixed Use) is not consistent with the current General Plan designation of Business Park; • The Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation to Mixed Use based on findings outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013-13; and • There is no evidence presented that modification of the project site from BP (Business Park) to MU1B (Mixed Use)would better serve the public necessity, convenience or general welfare. Pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance Section 25.050, when the Planning Commission considers a zoning amendment their role changes based on whether the Commission is supporting or opposing the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission can either make a 2- recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed amendment or deny the zoning amendment. When the Commission's decision is in opposition to the proposed amendment their role changes to that of a decision making body. Denial of an application shall in all cases, except an amendment initiated by the City Council,terminate the proceedings unless such decision is appealed to the City Council. On July 18, 2013 the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment(Attachment 6). Details of the appeal grounds are provided in the Discussion section of this staff report. Site Plan and Architectural Review Site Plan and Architectural Review plans and elevations were also presented to the Planning Commission to provide context for the land use entitlements being proposed and to allow the Planning Commission to provide initial design feedback to the applicant. Because the Planning Commission was not supportive of the proposed land use designation and zoning change they did not provide detailed comments on project design except in relation to the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment. Environmental Review Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study of potential environmental impacts and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared for the Lynch Creek Plaza project. The Initial Study was circulated for a 20-day public comment period. Mitigation measures to avoid, substantially reduce, or compensate for potential environmental impacts were identified in the following areas: Air Quality, Biology, Cultural Resources, Geology, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,Noise, and Transportation/Circulation. The Planning Commission did not take action on or spend considerable time discussing the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the lack of support for the proposed land use entitlements necessary for the project. Pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA guidelines, a project is exempt from CEQA when it is rejected or disapproved by a public agency. Proposed mitigation identified in the Greenhouse Gas impact category would result in elimination of the proposed pharmacy drive-through and would likely have the most significant change to the project design. General Plan Policy 4-P-12 prohibits new drive-through food and service facilities as a measure intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Because the drive- through component conflicts with General Plan policy 4-P-12 the Initial Study concludes that there was a potential environmental impact and proposes Mitigation Measure GHG-1 to reduce this impact to less than significant by eliminating the drive-through component from the project design. Mitigation Measure GHG-1. Prior to Final Site Plan and Architectural Review by the Planning Commission, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan, architectural elevations and architectural renderings that reflect the elimination of the drive-through component of the pharmacy building. This mitigation measure also mitigates potentially significant Land Use and Planning impact 3.10b which concludes that a potential impact would result if the project were to "conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project 3 (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect." As previously stated, the Planning Commission did not spend significant time discussing the environmental document or proposed design elements of the overall project because of the lack of support of the fundamental land use entitlements. Therefore, the Planning Commission did not discuss the drive through in particular or include any recommendations specifically pertaining to the drive through component of the project. Vacation of Easement There is an existing 1-foot non-access easement(NAE) along the property's North McDowell Boulevard frontage. The NAE was originally recorded on September 16, 1981 as part of the Petaluma Valley Medical Center Subdivision, in book 327 of maps at pages 10-11 and amended by certificate of correction recorded September 23, 1981 per document number 81-54787, Sonoma County Records. The City required the NAE to prevent future left turn ingress and egress to and from the project site to North McDowell Boulevard. As part of public improvements being completed for the Deer Creek Village project, a center median will be installed on North McDowell Boulevard preventing left turn in and out movements and limiting the proposed driveway approach to right turn ingress and egress only. Therefore,the NAE is no longer needed to restrict left turning movement. At their May 28th meeting the Planning Commission approved a resolution finding the proposed vacation consistent with General Plan Policy 5-P-1, which calls for development of an interconnected mobility system that allows travel on multiple routes by multiple modes (Attachment 3). Because of the Commission's subsequent recommendation to deny the necessary land use entitlements staff recommends that the vacation only be approved as part of an approved project. Should the Council decide to approve the General Plan Amendment and the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the Zoning Map Amendment, staff would return with a resolution to approve the vacation as part of the larger project approval. DISCUSSION Project Description Project Entitlements The applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Site Plan and Architectural Review to develop the property located at the corner of McDowell Boulevard and Lynch Creek Way as a retail commercial development. General Plan Amendment The project site is currently designated as Business Park in the General Plan 2025, which is intended for business and professional offices,technology park clusters,research and development, light industrial operations, and visitor service establishments with a variable maximum FAR of 1.5 to 3.0. Retail is only allowed as a secondary use in the Business Park designation. The proposed General Plan Amendment is to change the land use designation to Mixed Use (2.5 maximum FAR), which would allow a combination of uses, including retail, residential, service commercial, and/or offices. Zoning Map Amendment The project site is currently zoned Business Park(BP), consistent with the General Plan land use designation. The applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment to rezone the property to MU1B consistent with the proposed land use designation of Mixed Use. Allowable uses in the MU1B zoning district primarily include retail and office,with some light manufacturing uses. Site Plan and Architectural Review The proposed development is made up of two single story commercial buildings and associated parking and landscape improvements. The proposed development includes a 14,500 square foot retail building that would be a future Walgreens pharmacy and a 7,500 square foot commercial building for which tenants have not been identified. The size and layout of the 7,500 square foot pad building allows for flexibility in terms of the number and size of the tenants. The 14,500 square foot building is designed as a rectangular stucco building that is oriented toward the center of the property facing the parking lot. The building is approximately 23.5 feet high with 32 feet high towers at the northwest and northeast corners of the building to create architectural interest at this prominent corner site. The towers are designed with a mix of materials including brick cladding at the lower 15 feet and dark beige (Texas leather) stucco for the upper 14 feet. The towers are topped with about 2.5 feet of exposed beams supported by simple diagonal support brackets that would be painted brown(Plymouth brown). A combination of clear,tinted and spandrel glass is proposed for the lower portions of the building. A drive-through window is proposed on the rear(south) elevation of the building with associated access and queuing interior to the lot. A mural is proposed on the east facing facade to satisfy public art requirements for non-residential development. The loading berths and garbage facilities for this building are located on the east side of the building, screened with an approximately 14-foot high landscape screen. The 7,500 square foot building is a rectangular building with heights that vary from 23.5 to approximately 28 feet. The building is generally oriented toward the center of the lot facing the parking lot. The architectural treatments on the north side include the mix of materials that are proposed for the pharmacy building. The mix of stucco,brick cladding and glazing are similar to the proposed pharmacy building and are incorporated into the side oriented toward N. McDowell Boulevard. The east facing side of the building is also similar to the pharmacy building, which includes the mix of stucco and brick cladding. The west facing side of the building includes some of the same design elements for the first 20 feet. Beyond that,this side of the building is designed as the rear of the building with less architectural features. Access and Parking Access to the project site would be from driveways at N. McDowell Boulevard and at Lynch Creek Way. Eighty-three parking spaces are provided on site in a common parking lot between the two buildings and along the rear of the site. A 10-foot wide paved sidewalk is proposed along N. McDowell Boulevard. This sidewalk would be separated from the roadway by a 6-foot wide landscape strip. Ten bicycle parking spaces are proposed, including six within enclosed lockers. Six of these spaces are located near the proposed pharmacy and 4 are located near the multi-tenant building. Landscaping The project proposes site, parking lot, and perimeter landscaping that includes a mix of ground cover, shrubs and trees. Within the parking lot, trees are proposed in landscape fingers approximately every five parking spaces. A 6-foot wide landscape strip,which is directly 5 adjacent to McDowell Boulevard, incorporates street trees and groundcover. A 16-foot wide landscape strip and detention basin is proposed along the rear(south) property boundary. Landscaping proposed within this strip includes a row of redwood trees as well as groundcover. Appeal On July 18, 2014, Browman Development filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning from BP (Business Park) to MU1B (Mixed Use). The appeal contends that there is adequate evidence that the proposed amendment and including the associated General Plan Amendment would better serve the public convenience, necessity, and general welfare. The appellant requests that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission denial of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment after approving the proposed General Plan Amendment (appeal letter, Attachment 7). The following summarizes the appellant's argument with staff analysis in italics below each item. Appeal Ground #1 —Office Vacancy Rates The appellant states that there is evidence to support the proposed zoning amendment based on current office vacancy rates and the following information: • Within approximately 'A mile of the proposed Lynch Creek Plaza,there are at least nine office vacancies that were former medical office spaces totaling over 15,000 square feet of floor area. There is over 300,000 square feet of vacant office space along North McDowell Boulevard between East Washington Boulevard and just north of Old Redwood Highway. • There is a current proposal to demolish approximately 16,000 square feet of office space and replace it with multi-family housing at 35 Maria Drive. • In 2009 the hospital received City approval for development of 40,000 square feet of office space in front of the hospital (Lynch Creek east of North McDowell). This office space was not constructed due to lack of market demand. • The adjacent Deer Creek Village project could accommodate up to 12,800 square feet of medical and professional office. • The existing office space located on Lynch Creek Way, which is currently single story, could be redeveloped with a higher FAR if there was sufficient market demand. • Petaluma has 37% (55.96/40.82=137%)more office space per person than Santa Rosa and 33% (55.96/42.05=133%)more office space per person than Rohnert Park. In their findings for denial, the Planning Commission concluded that "the record does not provide adequate evidence that vacancy rates or economic conditions necessitate a change in general plan land use designation. " The Planning Commission discussed office vacancy rates, which have been at or above 25 percent since 2006 and considered the amount of land currently designated Business Park along the McDowell Boulevard corridor. The Planning Commission determined that this information Co was not compelling enough to justify a Zoning Map Amendment to modify the zoning from BP (Business Park) to MU1B (Mixed Use) and that there was no compelling evidence that the proposed Zoning Amendment would better serve the public necessity, convenience, or general welfare. The Planning Commissioners indicated that although office space existed elsewhere, that this site was unique due to its proximity to the hospital. The Planning Commission also noted that Lynch Creek Way was developed as an office development and that other properties within this neighborhood have been developed as office. The Commission also discussed the amount of retail space approved in the neighboring Deer Creek Village and therefore determined there was not a public need for an amendment for this site to allow additional retail development. Much of the additional information provided by the appellant in support of the appeal was not provided for the Planning Commission consideration. Staff has confirmed that the information is generally accurate. The Maria Drive Apartment project referenced by the appellant includes a proposal to demolish approximately 16,000 square feet of office space. However, that project is not located on a major arterial which the applicant has indicated makes it unsuitable for office, retail, or mixed use development. The Lynch Creek Plaza project is located along one of the city's main arterials. Appeal Ground #2 -- Medical Office Allowable in MU1B The proposed Zoning Map Amendment to MU1B does not preclude medical office use of the site. The applicant states that any office could be modified to accommodate medical office if there was a market demand for such a use. In addition,the applicant states that the Deer Creek Village project is also zoned MU1B, which would allow them to easily accommodate medical office should the demand exist. The Planning Commission discussed the uniqueness of the project site due to its proximity to the hospital and its location within the medical office neighborhood on Lynch Creek Way. The Planning Commission determined that although office space could be accommodated on the project site under the MU1B zoning designation, that the applicant did not indicate that office would be incorporated into the project and that the there is no way to require this. The Planning Commission concluded in it findings for recommending denial of a General Plan Amendment that "availability of land use designated Business Park is limited in Petaluma and this concentration of Business Park property provides a unique opportunity for medical office, research and development facilities, and light industrial uses. " This recommendation for denial was also used as a basis for denial of the Zoning Map Amendment The Commissioners stated that General Plan Amendments should be made to further the public interest and should not be used to accommodate changing market conditions. The Planning Commission further found that compelling evidence was not presented that a Zoning Map Amendment modifying the project site from BP (Business Park) to MU1B (Mixed Use) on this property would better serve the public necessity, convenience and general welfare given the limited availability of BP zoning in the city and the properties close proximity to the hospital and other medical office uses. Appeal Ground#3—The proposed project provides community benefits The appellant states that the project would provide a community benefit through the unique services and features that Walgreens would bring to Petaluma(Attachment 7). These services include: • Transitional Care Program • Bedside Delivery Service • Competitive Pricing • Immunizations • Medicare Part D • Specialty Pharmacy • Fresh Foods A Walgreens representative was in attendance at the July 9`h Planning Commission hearing and outlined the services that Walgreens offers. Commission members referred to Government Code Section 65358, which allows General Plan amendments when it is deemed to be in the public interest to do so. The Planning Commission found that the Walgreens proposal did not represent an important public interest that wasn't already offered or couldn't be offered on land already available for retail development in the City and therefore they did not support the General Plan Amendment or the associated Zoning Map Amendment. The Commission concluded that the proposed pharmacy services could be provided in the area on property already zoned to accommodate retail uses and that there was no evidence that these services needed to be accommodated on the project site. For these reasons the Commission did not support the General Plan Amendment and associated Zoning Map Amendment. Drive-Through The Planning Commission did not spend significant time discussing elements of the overall project because of the lack of support of the fundamental land use entitlements. Therefore, the Planning Commission did not discuss the proposed drive through component of the project or include any recommendations specifically pertaining to the drive through. The applicant has submitted a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report, dated September 6, 2012, that evaluated the potential for impacts to greenhouse gasses from the proposed development including impacts resulting from the proposed drive-through component of the Walgreens pharmacy. According to the report the project would have the potential to generate 419 metric tons of CO2 equivalents, which is below the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons. Thus,the report concluded that the proposed project with the drive-through, would not result in a significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to requesting the City Council approve the proposed General Plan Amendment and reverse the Planning Commission denial of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment,the applicant is hoping to receive City Council support for the proposed drive-through component of the project. While the proposed project, with drive through window, would not individually result in a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions, the drive-through window is in direct conflict with General Plan Policy 4-P-12, which prohibits drive-through facilities. Mitigation measure GHG-1, and the Draft SPAR conditions of approval which require that the drive-through window be eliminated were recommended to comply with this General Plan Policy. FINANCIAL IMPACTS This is a cost recovery project with all costs of processing the application paid by the applicant. The cost recovery account maintains a positive balance. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution Denying the General Plan Amendment 2. Draft Resolution Denying the Appeal 3. Planning Commission Resolution 2013-12 fmding the NAE Vacation consistent with General Plan 2025 4. Planning Commission Resolution 2013-13 recommending denial of the General Plan Amendment 5. Planning Commission Resolution 2013-14 denying the requested Zoning Map Amendment 6. Letter of Appeal, dated July 18, 2013 7. Appeal background documentation submitted by applicant 8. Public Comment letter received after PC meeting 9. Planning Commission meeting minutes, July 9, 2013 10. Planning Commission Staff Report Packet, July 9, 2013 9 I 'D ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL DENYING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM BUSINESS PARK TO MIXED USE FOR THE LYNCH CREEK PLAZA PROJECT LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF NORTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD AND LYNCH CREEK WAY APN 007-380-007 FILE NO. 12-GPA-0236 WHEREAS, Browman Development, Inc. submitted applications for a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Lynch Creek Plaza project located at the corner of North McDowell Boulevard and Lynch Creek Way ("the Project" or the "proposed Project"); and WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment on May 28, 2013 and July 9, 2013. A copy of the notice was published in the Argus Courier, provided to residents and occupants within 500 feet of the site in compliance with state and local law, and routed to appropriate agencies listed under Government Code Section 65352; and. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the application and related staff report and received and considered all written and oral public testimony submitted up to and at the time of the public hearing in accordance with the City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, at its duly noticed public hearing the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council deny the requested General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designation of the project site from Business Park to Mixed Use based on findings contained in Resolution No. 2013-12; and WHEREAS, on September 9, 2013, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council considered the application and related staff report and received and considered all written and oral public testimony submitted up to and at the time of the public hearing regarding the requested General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designation of the subject site from Business Park to Mixed Use; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Petaluma City Council hereby denies the requested General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan land use designation of the subject site from Business Park to Mixed Use based on the following findings: 1. The current Business Park designation is consistent with designation and use of properties in the surrounding Lynch Creek Way neighborhood and compatible with the Petaluma Hospital on the east side of North McDowell Boulevard. Availability of land designated Business Park is limited in Petaluma and this concentration of -- I Business Park-propertyprovi des a unique opportunity for medical office, research and development facilities, and light industrial uses. 2. There is no compelling reason to modify the General Plan land use designation from Business Park given that there is available land already designated for retail development within the city and the location of the"project site makes it particularly suitable for the Business Park designation. 3. The record does not provide adequate evidence that vacancy rates or economic conditions necessitate a change in general plan land use designation. The General Plan land use designation is part of the city's long term vision and therefore does not need to be changed to respond to fluctuating market.demands. 4. Although typical business park uses such as medical office. or research and development overlap with the Mixed Use designation, the applicant has not indicate a desire to incorporate these types of uses into the project. 2 • ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION OF'THE CITY OF PETALUMA.CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING`COMMVIISSION'S DENIAL OF A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT TO REZONE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF NORTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD AND LYNCH CREEK WAY FROM BP (BUSINESS PARK) TO MU1B (MIXED USE) APN 007-380-007 FILE'NO. 12-GPA-0236 WHEREAS, Browman,Development, Inc.. submitted applications for a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and Site Plan and Architectural' Review for the Lynch Creek Plaza project located at the corner of North McDowell Boulevard and Lynch Creek Way ("the Project" or the "proposed Project"); and WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings to consider the proposed Implementing Zoning Ordinance amendment on May 28, 2013 and July9, 2013. WHEREAS,the Planning Commission considered the application and related staff report and received and considered°all written and oral public comments submitted up to and at the`time of the public hearing in accordance with the City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, at its duly noticed public hearing the Planning Commission denied the requested.Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property from BP (business Park) to MU 1B (Mixed Use) based on findings contained in Resolution No. 2013-14; and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2013, an appeal of.the Planning Commission's decision was filed with the City Clerk by Jim.Stephens, on behalf of Browman Development; and WHEREAS, on September 9, 2013, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council. considered the application and related staff report and received and considered all written and oral public.00niments submitted up to and at the time of the public hearing in accordance with the City Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT'RESOLVED that the City Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's denial of a zoning map amendment to rezone the subject property from BP (Business Park)to MUI B,(Mixed Use) based on the;following findings : 1. The proposed amendment to the Implementing Zoning Ordinance to rezone the subject property from,BP (Business Park)to MUIB (Mixed Use) is not consistent with the current General Plan designation of Business Park. 2— - I 2. The requested.General'Plan Amendment,to change'the land usedesignation from Business Park to Mixed Use has been denied by the City Council based on find ings outlinedin City Council resolution 2013- 3. The documentation,presented does not indicate.that'rnodification of the project site from BP (Business Park)to MU9'B (Mixed Use) would better serve the public necessity, convenience, or general welfare given that there is property with current zoning to support retail•development in,el'ose proximity to the hospital and there is limited business park land available that would be further reduced by the proposed zoning map amendment. 4. Although the appellant has submitted additional documentation as part of their appeal, the additional information is not adequate to compel the City Council to overturn the • Planning Commission's decision. — 2 ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. '2013-12 ;CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINING THAT THE PROPOSED VACATION OF THE 1-FOOT WIDE NON ACCESS EASEMENT ON'PARCEL ONE:;ALONG:NORTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD AS SHOWN ON THE PETALUMA VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER SUBDIVISION,MAP RECORDED ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1981 IN BOOK 327 OF MAPS, PAGES 10-11, AND AMENDED;BY'CERTIFICATE.OF CORRECTION RECORDED SEPTEMBER 23, 1981 PER DOCUMENT NUMBER 81-54757, SONOMA•COUNTY RECORDS, IS'CONSISTENT WITH THE PETALUMA GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS; the Petaluma Health.Care District of Petaluma, CA has submitted an application to the City of Petaluma Planning Department requesting that:the City vacate the existing 1-foot wide non access easement shown on parcel one of the-above-referenced subdivision map,along the property frontage of North McDowell Boulevard; and WHEREAS, Petaluma Health Care District has requested the?proposed vacation to accommodate tferight.in:and righf,out access to and from.North McDowell Boulevard to ij providebetter site,circulation -and, • WHEREAS"a median-will be installed in North McDowell Boulevard as part the adjacent Deer Creek Plaz&Shopping,Center'to.prevent left turning movement conflicts into and out of :J the proposed.Lyneh Creek-Plaza"Shopping Center; •�i NOW THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY: 1. Incorporates herein by reference the above recitals. 2: Finds.that;the proposed vacation is consistent with the Petaluma General Plan Policy 5-P-1 which callsfbr development of an interconnected mobility system that allows travelon multiple routes by multiple modes. The proposed vacation,would allow access driveway directly onto N. McDowell Boulevard for the,Lynchtreek Plaza profect(12=,.GP.'A-0236). The non-access easemeht R no longer necessary and the recently.approved`Deer,Creek Plaza Shopping Center project is required to install a centerrmedidn on-North.MeDowelLBoulevard which will prevent left turn in and out movement's, limiting the proposed driveway approach to right turn in and out only. { 3-1 ,Planning Commission Resolution No.2013-12 Page 1 4 tz. ADOPTET.Ythis 28q,clay•of May 2013,,by the following vote: , karrit ,t 1 -Abu gqrnMISSAPatt12111,PSr° S, b en10 awl Abercrombie Elkis X Johnson X Council Member Miller X Chair Pierre X Vice Chair Wcilberi X fl Jennifer" Pierre, Chair ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Heathernes, Cdmmittee Secretary Eric Darily, City,Attorhey 5-1 Planning Commission Resolution No 2013-12: Page'2" ATTACHMENT 4 t RESOLUTION No. 2013-T3 CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING'THE"CITY`COUNCIL DENY A,GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGETHE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM.BUSINESS PARK TO MIXED USE FOR THE LYNCH'CREEK PLAZA"SITE LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF NORTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD'AND LYNCH CREEK WAY ri APN 007-380-007 FILE''NO. 12-GPA=0236 WHEREAS;%Browman Developrnent, Inc., submitted an.applibation for a General Plan Amendment to:change the land use designation of the project siteilocated at the corner of North McDowell Boulevard.and'Ly,nchiCreek Way (APN 007-380.007) from Business Park to Mixed Useiand WHEREASr;the City's Planning'Commission,held duly noticed public hearings to consider the proposed.General Planamendment on May 28, 2013.and July=R2-2013: A copy of the'notice was published in the Argus-Courier„provided to residents and;occupants witlin9500 feet of"the site in.Compliancecwith state:and.local1aw, and routed to appropriate agencies listed under Government Code-Section 65352; NOW`THEREFOREBE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City'Council deny the proposed General Plan Amendment to.change the General Plan Land Use designation'of the-subject parcel (APN 007-380-007) from Business:Park to Mixed Use based ontthe following findings 1. The current:Bu`siness Park,designationis-consistent with designation and use of•propertiesiin the surrounding Lynch Creek Way neighborhood and compatible with'the Petaluma;Hospit'al do thefeasf side of North,MCDowell'Boule"ard. Availability of land,use designated Business' Park is;limited+in Petaluma and this concentration of Business,Parkproperty pre vides a unique. F 'opportunity for medical office, research and development facilities, and light industrial uses. 2. The=Planning Commission hasnot found compelling reason to modify-the General-Plan land use designation from Business,Park. 3. The record does;,not provide adequate evidence that vacancy'rates or economic conditions net a change in.general`plan land"use designation. ii ic Planning Commission Resolution No.2613E13: Page 1 :if 4. ..fneretst)o.eYlcience'thdfa modification to Mixedusewodia:Pefter erve the public necessity,,coriyenience, or general welfare. ADOirftb.ihis Oth dayekltrly, 20-13, by tile following vole: -•arg.ierm :1• 4,-onlwrai 0445 €;: kft5PIPPAI;12,,,t,Ssigt2111 Lin Mar.z9.2 Colin411rnembei Miller X. Chair Ilene X Widkj X 'Vicethair Wolpert. ci JenniferPierre,;Choir ATTEST: APPROVED T® FOR : Heather Hines, Committee Secretary Eric Danly, City Attorney t 1+4 •'11 planning commission Resolution No.2013-13 Page.2 ATTACHMENT 5 RESOLUTION NO.,201'3;-14 CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A MAP AMENDMENT TO THE IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE LYNCH CREEK PLAZA PROJECT LOCATED,AT THECORNER OF NORTH MCDOWELL e BOULEVARD AND LYNCH CREEK WAY APN 007-380-007 FILE NO. 12-GPA-0236 WHEREAS;'Browman;Development, Inc. submitted' applications fora General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, and Site Plan and LArchitedural Review for the Lynch Creek Plaza project located at thetorner of North McDowell,Boulevard and Lynch Creek Way ("the Project" or the "proposed Project"); and, WHEREASrthe City's Planning',.Commission held duly noticed poblicshearings to consider the proposed Implementing Zoning Ordinance amendment on May 28,2013 and July 9, 2013; ?; NOW THEREFORE,'BEJT.RESOLVED that the Planning Commission:hereby denies the zoning map amendment of the subject property from BP (Business Park) to MUTB,(Mixed Use) based on the findings below: 1. The proposed amendmentto the Implementing Zoning Ordinance to rezone the subject property from BP (Business Park) to MU l B (Mixed,Use) is not consistent with the current General Van designation of Business Park. 2. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the-requested General Plan Amendment to changer the land use designation totMixed.Use based on findings outlined in Planning'Comhiission Resolution No. 20)3-13. +i 3. There is no evidence presented that modification of:the project Site from BP (Business Park) to MU]B (Mixed Use) on this property would.better,serve the public necessity, convenience, or general welfare. ADOPTED this 9th day:JotrJuly; 2013, by the following vote: t ' 4., .,. 0` 'Kr -iTMC,."zl cf'" ^ r' 'mar t'Pt :•X34 r Ate. 'iCommission Member�F��ltnti .r Aye4 j 09-.1 V..*Psent Abstain f Lin j X Marzo X Councilmember"Miller. X Chair Pierre X Wick t) Vice,Chair,Wolper' X 5- I Planning Commission Resolution No.2013-14 Page 1 i. Jennifer Pierre, Chair ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Heather Hines; Committee Secretary Eric Danly, City Attorney 9i �F ,r • a ' Yf 5-Z .Planning Commission.Resolution No 2013-1'4, Page-2'