HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2016-141 N.C.S. 09/12/2016Resolution No. 2016 -141 N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
GRANTING AN APPEAL AND OVERTURNING THE NON - ACTION DENIAL OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE
MARINA DRIVE APARTMENTS PROJECT LOCATED 0 MARINA DRIVE
APN: 005- 060 -089 and 005- 060 -072
FILE NO: PLMA -15 -0004
WHEREAS, Steven Lafranchi of Steven J. Lafranchi & Associates submitted an
application for Conditional Use Permit approval, on behalf of property owner Petaluma Marina
Office Investors, LLC, for a proposed ninety (90) unit residential apartment building and other
associated site improvements ( "Project ") located at the northwest career of the Petaluma Marina
at APN 050- 060 -089 and 005- 060 -072; and
WHEREAS, on December 22, 2015, the City's Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing, pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance §§ 19.040(E) and 19.070, to
consider an application to amend the Marina Planned Commercial District ( "Marina PCD ") and
at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on December 22, 2015, the Planning Commission considered the staff
report dated December 22, 2015, analyzing the application, including the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") determination included therein; and
WHEREAS, on December 22, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
2015 -25 recommending the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project;
and
WHEREAS, on December 22, 2015, a motion before the Planning Commission to
approve an amended General Development Plan for the Marina PCD resulted in a tie vote and,
thereby, resulted in a de facto denial of the application under Implementing Zoning Ordinance
§25.050; and
WHEREAS, on December 29, 2015, the applicant submitted a valid and timely appeal of
the Planning Commission's de facto denial of the request to approve an amended General
Development Plan for the Marina PCD; and,
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been duly, regularly and lawfully given, a public
hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission's de facto denial was held by the City Council
on April 4, 2016, where all persons interested had the opportunity to be heard; and,
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2016, prior to acting on the appeal, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 2016 -051 N.C.S. approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project,
including a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2016 -052
N.C.S. granting the appeal, overturning the Planning Commission's de facto denial, and
approving the application to amend the General Development Plan for the Marina PCD; and
Resolution No. 2016 -141 N.C.S. Page 1
WHEREAS, the Marina PCD, as amended by City Council Resolution No. 2016 -052
N.C.S., states at Table 5.1 that a Conditional Use Permit is required for the "Dwelling, Multiple"
land use type; and
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the application for Site Plan and Architectural Review and Conditional Use
Permit approval; and
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2016, a motion before the Planning Commission to approve the
Conditional Use Permit request failed and no subsequent denial motion was offered; thereby,
resulting in denial of the request under Implementing Zoning Ordinance §24.010(F); and
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2016, the applicant submitted, pursuant to Implementing
Zoning Ordinance §24.010(H), a valid and timely appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of
the request to approve a Conditional Use Permit; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant's appeal seeks approval by the City Council a Conditional
Use Permit, without conditions; and
WHEREAS, public notice was published in the Argus Courier and mailed to residents
and occupants within 1,500 feet of the project site, all in compliance with state and local law;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
A. Pursuant to Implementing Zoning Ordinance §24.070(G), the City Council hereby
grants the appeal and overturns the denial by the Planning Commission.
B. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
C. Based on the staff report, staff presentation, comments received and the public
hearing, the City Council makes the following findings based on substantial evidence
in the record:
California Environmental Qualitc
The Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by City Council Resolution No.
2016 -051 N.C.S. remains sufficient to address the potential impacts of the Project.
2. Additional documentation is not required by CEQA Guidelines §15162 and none
of the situations described at CEQA Guidelines § 15164 are present.
General Plan
3. The Project is consistent with the Mixed Use General Plan land use designation
because it consists of a "Dwelling, Multiple" land use and, with implementation
of Mitigation Measure LU -1 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by
City Council Resolution No. 2016 -051 N.C.S, it will comply with the permitted
maximum residential density of 30 housing units per acre.
4. The Project is, for the reasons discussed in the September 12, 2016 City Council
staff report, consistent with the following Petaluma General Plan policies: Policy
Resolution No. 2016 -141 N.C.S. Page 2
1 -P -1 (Development Within UGB); Policy 1 -P -2 (Efficient Land Use in UGB);
Policy 1 -P -11 (Land Use Intensification); Policy 1 -P -27 (Parking Solutions);
Policy 2 -P -5 (Arterial Corridors); Policy 2 -P -I1 (River Oriented Development);
Goal 2 -G -5 (Lakeville Highway Connectivity); Policy 2 -P -27 (Petaluma Marina -
Land Uses); and Policy 2 -P -30 (Petaluma Marina — Compatibility).
Implementin Zoning oning Ordinance
5. The Project is consistent with all development standards of the Marina PCD
including, but no limited to, those pertaining to building height, setbacks and off -
street parking requirements.
6. All of the required findings for Conditional Use Permit approval found at
Implementing Zoning Ordinance §24.030 (G)(1) can be made, as follows:
a) The Project is appropriately sited at a vacant pad within the Petaluma Marina
which is able to accommodate the proposed use including, for example,
through the use of existing off - street parking spaces and new outdoor area for
passive recreation by residents. The Project excludes outdoor activities in
need of screening and, due to its location removed from other uses and
buildings, there is no need to address the protection of outlook, light, air, and
peace and quiet. The Project is residential in use and, therefore, excludes the
display of goods and services as well as signage. The Project's residential
nature in a primarily commercial setting indicates no issues with regard to
intensity of use.
b) The Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by City Council Resolution No.
2015 -052 N.C.S. demonstrates that streets serving the proposed use are
adequate for the traffic expected to be generated and that vehicular access and
parking, including the location of driveway entrance and exits are adequate,
convenient, and safe. The Project excludes truck traffic.
c) The Project's residential uses are sufficiently removed from existing
commercial uses to prevent incompatibility. Most existing commercial uses,
including the Sheraton hotel, are primarily accessible from and interact with
their east building elevation and abutting parking lot which do not face and
are removed from the proposed apartment building. The closest commercial
building facing the proposed apartments is located approximately 250 feet to
the south and includes ground -level offices, a recreational equipment rental
business, and a coffee shop. There are no nearby land uses of unusual public
importance such as schools, libraries, playgrounds, churches, and hospitals
with which the Project raises a question of compatibility. The Project consists
solely of dwelling units and, as a result, an evaluation of hours of operation or
hazardous materials handling is not applicable. Also, because the Project
consists of a residential use in a commercial setting, it would generate no off -
site effects such as noise, dust, odors, light, or glare, etc.
d) The Project consists of a permanent residential use and, therefore, the setting
of time limits for the duration of this permit is not appropriate.
e) The Project's location does not raise a question as to whether this application
is a matter of public convenience and necessity.
Resolution No. 2016 -141 N.C.S. Page 3
C. Based on its review of the entire record herein, including the September 12, 2016 City
Council staff report, all supporting, referenced, and incorporated documents and all
comments received and foregoing findings, the City Council hereby approves a
Conditional Use Permit for the "Dwelling, Multiple" land use at the Project site.
D. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its
boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
preceding against the City, it's boards, commissions, agents, officers, or employees to
attack, set aside void or annul any of the approvals of the project, when such a claim
or action is brought within the time period provided for any applicable State and /or
local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicant /developers of any such
claim, action or preceding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing
contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of
any claim, action, or proceeding and, if the City chooses to do so, the appellant shall
reimburse the City for attorney fees.
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
Resolution No. 2016 -141 N.C.S.
Page 4