Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/22/2001Planning Commission Minutes - May 22, 2001 p L U City of Petaluma, California City Council Chambers City Hall, 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498 E -Mail planningnci.netaluma.ca.us Web Page h=: / /www.ci.petaluma.ca.us 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Planning Commission Minutes May 22 2001 — 7:00 PM JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION / SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING LUCCHESI COMMUNITY CENTER 320 N. McDowell Blvd., CRAFTS ROOM 1 PETALUMA, CA 94952 Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498 E -Mail planning@ci.petaluma.ca.us Web Page http: / /www.ci.petaluma.ca.us Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Broad *, Glass, Monteschio, O'Brien, Vouri Absent: Vieler * Chair Staff Mike Moore, Community Development Director George White, Planning Manager Jane Thomson, Senior Planning Technician ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of April 24, 2001 to be brought back with additional comments on Item 1. PUBLIC COMMENT: Hank Plum — 1721 Stonehenge — Baker Ranch property, southeast corner of Ely near Corona Creek School — would like the oak trees saved. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: Commissioner Vouri — Project Graduation for High School Graduations — Safe, non - drinking atmosphere — Saturday, June 16 — Seeking volunteers. CORRESPONDENCE: APPEAL STATEMENT: Within fourteen (14) calendar days following the date of a decision of the Planning Commission, the decision may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or by any other interested party. If no appeal is made within that time, I Planning Commission Minutes - May 22, 2001 1 the decision shall be final. An appeal shall be addressed to the Council in writing and 2 shall be filed with the City Clerk. Said appeal shall be accompanied by the appeal fee as 3 specified by Resolution 92- 251- N.C.S. as adopted by the City Council. The appeal shall 4 state specifically the grounds for the appeal and the relief sought by the appellant. 5 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Persons commenting orally or in writing are 6 advised to raise all pertinent issues at this state of review so that possible solutions may 7 be implemented or adopted at the earliest opportunity. If you challenge the action taken 8 by the City of Petaluma in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or 9 someone else raised during the public review process, or in written correspondence 10 delivered to the City at or prior to the conclusion of the public review process. 11 12 13 CONSENT: 14 15 I. VINO PREMIUM DISCOUNT WINES, 1390 North McDowell, Suite D, 16 - APN 137 - 011 -065, File #PCN 01002 akt) 17 18 Consideration of a request that a determination be made and findings forwarded to the 19 State of California Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), that public convenience or 20 necessity would be served by the issuance of an ABC license (Type 20 — off sale beer and 21 wine) to Vino Premium Discount Wines to allow the retail sales of alcohol at 1390 North 22 McDowell Boulevard, Suite D. 23 24 A motion was made by Commissioner Glass and seconded by Commissioner O'Brien to 25 approve this consent calendar item. 26 27 Commissioner Barrett: Yes 28 Commissioner Glass: Yes 29 Commissioner Monteschio: Yes 30 Commissioner O'Brien: Yes 31 Commissioner Vieler: Absent 32 Commissioner Vouri: Yes 33 Chair Broad: Yes 34 35 Findings for the Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity: 36 37 1. The proposed use is within a census tract which, pursuant to State Assembly Bill 38 2897 which amended Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code, is 39 considered to have an undue concentration of retail liquor licenses. The Planning 40 Commission finds that, pursuant to Section 23958.4(b)(2), this license should be 41 issued to Vino Premium Discount Wines because: 42 43 a. The sale of wine in the retail shop will provide a convenience to the 44 general public; 45 b. The sale of wine in the retail shop to patrons increases the economic 46 viability of the business; 47 C. Although Vino Premium Discount Wines is proposed to be located 48 within a census tract which experiences an undue concentration of 2 Planning Commission Minutes - May 22, 2001 1 retail liquor licenses, the sale of alcohol will not create a nuisance or 2 be detrimental to the public health or welfare as there will be no on- 3 site consumption, and the hours of the retail operation are limited to 4 1 OAM to 9PM Monday through Thursday, 1 OAM to IOPM Friday and 5 Saturday, and 1 OAM to 6PM Sunday, which will limit the potential for 6 nuisances. 7 8 Conditions of Approval 9 10 1. Hours of operation for the sales of alcohol shall be limited to IOAM to 9PM 11 Monday through Thursday, IOAM to lOPM Friday and Saturday, and IOAM to 12 6PM Sunday. Expansion of hours for alcohol sales shall require additional review 13 by the Planning Commission. 14 15 2. No on -site tastings to consumers shall be permitted at any time. Consumer 16 tastings shall require an amendment to this Public Convenience or Necessity 17 determination, and the processing of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the 18 operation of an Alcoholic Beverage Establishment. 19 20 3. The applicants /developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the city or 21 any of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, 22 action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or 23 employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when 24 such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable 25 State and /or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the 26 applicants /developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall 27 coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the 28 City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City 29 bears its own: attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good 30 faith. 31 32 33 CONVENE JOINT MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION /SITE PLAN AND 34 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE 35 36 SPARC ROLL CALL Present: Kosewic, Lynch, Mathies, Monteschio, Parkerson; 37 historic Present: Hopkins Absent: Hurley 38 39 II. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PLANNING COMMISSION 40 AND SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. 41 42 Mike Moore — Summarized item, referenced recent City Council discussion; asked for 43 concerns of SPARC and Planning Commission. 44 Chair Broad — Opened discussion to public. 45 Gordon Briggs — RNM Properties — Role of Bicycle Committee should be clearer. 46 John Mills — Doesn't come before SPARC or Planning Commission often — lots of help 47 at Building counter; wants certainty; cited experience of moving historic house and 3 Planning Commission Minutes - May 22, 2001 1 evaluation; Heritage Homes involvement — could impact project — took too long, need 2 more defined roles. 3 George White — Recounted historic review process. 4 Commissioner Barrett — Suggested Uniform Application have an additional section to 5 check -off necessity of Heritage Homes/Historic evaluation. 6 Mike Moore — Handouts do need to be updated, but low priority due to volume and staff 7 levels. 8 Committee Member Kosewic — There has been discretion with demo permits; stricter 9 how SPARC/Planning Commission should be separated; Planning Commission review 10 land use; SPARC review design review issues — keep roles separate. 11 Larry Jonas — Need a check list with all information; SPARC should be before City 12 Council review, not after; SPARC micromanages design. 13 Gina Pitler — Need staff historic preservation review person. 14 Bill White — Wants to know what is expected; less clear now — process needs to be 15 clearer; less back and forth; SPARC does improve project — need to get on the same page; 16 need to look at Zoning Ordinance for downtown in particular. 17 Gina Pitler — Need rules for downtown — parking /traffic, etc. 18 John Fitzgerald — Regarding chain of command — process is more expensive, more 19 complicated, longer; with Urban Growth Boundary, need for in -fill projects; need a more 20 streamlined process. 21 Bill White — In -fill standards exist in other places; get some examples and apply. 22 Committee Member Kosewic — SPARC needs to be able to "recommend" as well as 23 "require ". 24 Commissioner Vouri — This meeting is first step in looking for a "new process "; needs 25 to be a "big picture" for downtown; Planning Commission needs to "shepherd" Central 26 Petaluma Specific Plan to implementation. 27 Commissioner O'Brien — Need "common sense" use expertise of staff. 28 Committee Member Parkerson — Planning Commission charged with broad issues — 29 big projects; SPARC deals with details of projects; need better communication between 30 staff /developers/boards and commissions. 31 Committee Member Mathies — SPARC needs limits; suggestions versus requirements. 32 Committee Member Lynch — Has been on both sides of table; may not be able to have 33 one check list — still needs to be updated; i.e. — Bicycle Committee — staff needs to make 34 applicants aware of new regulations. 35 Committee Member Kosewic — No land use aspects to SPARC — need ability to include 36 suggestions as well as requirements; C.O. needs updating — revise parking standards — 37 more flexibility in applying standards; rely more on staff for final details; economics 38 should be part of the process. 39 Committee Member Hopkins — Need to take long, hard look at new projects. 40 Commissioner Barrett — Liked Committee Member Parkerson's summary — need 41 Central Petaluma Specific Plan adoption; need new General Plan to get new Zoning 42 Ordinance; Planning Commission should work with staff to create "checklist" — one size 43 doesn't fit all — compare in -fill standards. 44 Commissioner Glass — Need Zoning Ordinance — current Ordinance needs work — 45 update by professionals; checklist will never replace thorough review of projects; learn 46 from experience — checklist needs to be continually updated; need good in -fill link to 47 Urban Growth Boundary. 4 Planning Commission Minutes - May 22, 2001 1 Commissioner Vouri — Consider SPARC review prior to City Council — need in -fill 2 standards; action items — 1) Planning Commission consider environmental impacts — 3 SPARC deals with details and architecture and site plan, 2) Checklist, 3) Limits of 4 SPARC discretion. 5 Commissioner Monteschio — Kudos to Planning Division; keep working on check -list; 6 Zoning Ordinance needs work; need funds to do it; City Council needs to budget; CPSP 7 may need more money; process is too long; "fast track" for small projects; 8 "philosophical" statement for Planning Commission and SPARC; Historic Preservation 9 Planner needed. 10 Commissioner O'Brien - Not enough dollars; 10% cut already, no surplus. 11 Chair Broad — Checklist; provide handout/checklists for environmental review; learn 12 from experience — "dynamic" checklist; environmental review as land use? Expand 13 SPARC or limit SPARC; use Planning Commission as environmental review body? 14 Amend Zoning Ordinance to require larger project to go to Planning Commission. 15 16 Recommendations — 17 18 1) Checklist improvement — first point of contact. 19 2) Requirements versus recommendations. 20 3) SPARC prior to City Council overall process — Planning Commission as final 21 decision maker on certain applications. 22 4) Zoning Ordinance update — in -fill requirements — scope of General Plan. 23 5) Thresholds for SPARC and Planning Commission responsibilities. 24 6) Training for new members of Planning Commission and SPARC. 25 26 27 III. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION ON THE DRAFT 28 SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE CENTRAL 29. PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN. 30 31 The consensus of SPARC was to go ahead as indicated on work program and 32 to continue (for further Planning Commission discussion only) to the 33 Planning Commission Meeting of June 12, 2001. 34 35 36 ADJOURN JOINT MEETING: 10:37 PM 37 38 39 IV. ONGOING COMMISSION /STAFF DISCUSSION. 40 41 42 V. LIAISON REPORTS: 43 44 N City Council 45 ® SPARC 46 ® Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee Planning Commission Minutes - May 22, 2001 Tree Advisory Committee 2 4 VI. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. 6 7 Adjournment (Planning Commission Meeting): 10:38 PM 8 9