HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/23/1999Planning Commission Minutes - February 23, 1999
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
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
CITY OF PETALUMA, CA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 23,1999,7:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY HALL, 11 ENGLISH STREET
PETALUMA, CA 94952
Telephone 707/7784301 / Fax 707/778 -4498
E -Mail planning @ci.petaluma.ca.us
Web Page http: /hvwww.ci.petaluma.ca.us
Commissioners: Present: Barrett (arrived at 7:05 PM), Bennett*, Broad, Feibusch,
Glass, Healy, Vieler
s Chairperson
Staff. Vincent C. Smith AICP, Interim Planning Director
Elizabeth Dunn aiCP, Assistant Planner
Irene Borba, Assistant Planner
Craig Spaulding, Civil Engineer
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Minutes of February 9, 1999 were approved with
corrections to pages 1 and 11. _
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: Commissioner Broad - Sadly reported the death of
Sue Chechanover this past weekend.
CORRESPONDENCE: None.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
CONTINUED BUSINESS:(CONTINUED FROM 2/9/99 MEETING)
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. MARTIN HISTORIC PLAZA, 1197 E. Washington, APN 007 -361-
022, File No's REZ98001 /GPA98004 (ED).
The development proposal is to rezone a 1.9 acre parcel from R -1, One Family
Residential, to Planned Unit Development (PUD), and amend the General Plan
1
Planning Commission Minutes - February 23. 1999
1 Land Use designation from Urban High to Mixed use in order to establish the
2 "Martin Historic Plaza" at 1197 East Washington, APN 007 - 361 -022. This
.3 triangular shaped property is to the west of the southbound Highway 101 off
-
4 ramp. Should the development be approved, the barn and tack building would be
5 demolished; the house and pump house would remain. Four new two -story
6 buildings would be constructed and are proposed for office use; a total of 16,239
7 square feet for office /professional use would be created. Access to the site would
8 come from an existing 30 foot wide easement, known as Sturcon Way, that
9 intersects with Ellis Street, directly across from Alma Court. The existing East
10 Washington Street access will be eliminated. As part of the rezoning proposal,
11 the developer also requests that a Historic District overlay be added to recognize
12 the existing single family residence designed by Brainerd Jones and constructed
13 between 1910 and 1914.
14
15 Assistant Planner Dunn presented the staff report.
16
17 The public hearing was reopened.
18
19 SPEAKERS:
20
.21 Sue Traitwain - Applicant - Available for questions.
22 Steve Arago - Project Landscape Architect - Described differences between original and
.23 new landscape plans; landscaping helps link project together with campus -like feel; fire
24 access not as good on second proposal; tack building couldn't be saved in the second
°.'25 plan; some of the eucalyptus trees are diseased; landscaping proposed blends in with
26 Washington Street tree planting scheme; outstanding courtyard feel with the trees
27 proposed; discussed planting (rate of growth, etc.); backdrop of trees surrounding
28 property.
29 Commissioner Broad - What size trees are proposed?
30 Steve Arago - 24" for the slower growing Ginko's, 15 gallon for most of the others.
31 Commissioner Broad - How fast do redwoods grow?
= 32 Steve Arago - 40+ feet in 6 years.
-33 Commissioner Vieler - The Eucalyptus trees don't seem to be very distressed.
34 Steve Arago - Most of the Eucalyptus can remain until the redwoods are grown; some
35 eucalyptus may be healthy for 5 -10 years.
36 Commissioner Glass - What is the difference in impervious surface between the first and
37 second proposals?
38 Shawn Montoya - Project Architect - The first proposal has about 12 6 /o more impervious
39 surface.
40 Steve LaFranchi - Project Engineer - Storm water impact is statistically not much
41 different; drainage will be specifically designed for either proposal.
42 Commissioner Healy - Describe water detention for both proposals.
43 Steve LaFranchi - Detention ponds are designed for more than adequate storage
44 capacity.
Planning Commission Minutes - February 23, 1999
I Chairman Bennett - Is there much area involved to insure fast growth of redwood trees?
2 Concerns with shallow root system?
3 Steve Arago - No special care; no concerns with shallow roots.
4 Sue Traitwain - Tried to address all issues of Planning Commission from last meeting;
5 second plan does not give access to house as well as the first plan did; has spoken with
6 neighbors - they seem to be happy with the plan.
7 William Piehl - 136 Margo - Does like the second proposal much better than the first;
8 likes choice and placement of trees on the second proposal.
9
10 The public hearing was closed.
I1
12 Commissioner Healy - Likes idea of keeping Eucalyptus while redwood trees are
13 growing in; on -site storm detention seems adequate; comfortable with barn not being
14 retained; rooftop equipment is adequately screened; fix location of existing Sturcon Street
15 stop sign; more comfortable with second plan (parking location).
16 Commissioner Glass - In favor of this project; positive effect; likes second proposal;
17 Chinese Pistache good choice; detention ponds need to hold as much water as possible;
18 admirable to preserve this house.
19 Commissioner Broad - Agrees with Commissioners Healy and Glass - strongly in favor
20 of second site plan; will be attractive site; congratulates applicant for talking to
21 neighbors; minor comments - make sure conditions contain provision to retain Eucalyptus
22 trees and require new trees to be at least 15 gallon size; would like barn to be retained if
23 possible, but looking at whole project, it will be an asset to City.
24 Commissioner Vieler - Feels buildings may be too "bunched" together; strongly favors
25 first plan, buildings spread out more; keep Eucalyptus as long as possible - existing trees
26 are home to birds.
27 Commissioner Barrett - Agrees with Commissioner Vieler, keep Eucalyptus as long as
28 possible; does like second plan; _would like to see more than one detention pond.
29 Steve LaFranchi - Detention pond has adequate storage capacity; sized for 100 -year
30 storm.
31 Commissioner Barrett - Where would water be redirected if detention pond overflows?
32 Steve LaFranchi - It shouldn't overflow, but it would flow into Washington Creek.
33 Commissioner Barrett - Traffic concerns with children attending elementary school near
34 project site.
35 Carol Whitmire - Timing of use (hours of operation) will help with traffic flows.
36 Commissioner Barrett - Need more direction/signage to insure traffic safety.
37 Commissioner Feibusch - Planted Coast Redwood several years ago, haven't given tree
38 any care, it's now 60' tall; prefers second proposal; likes concept of a central meeting
39 place surrounded by buildings; pleasant addition to Washington corridor.
40 Chairman Bennett - Excellent project; approves of second proposal; should add a
41 condition specifying phasing of tree removal; redwoods are a good choice; refer traffic
42 safety issues on Sturcon to Traffic Committee.
43 Commissioner Barrett - Report indicates there are only 6 trees showing visible signs of
44 distress, could the Tree Advisory Committee be consulted on the necessity of any tree
45 removal?
3
Planning Commission Minutes - February 23, 1999
1 Chairman Bennett - That's a good idea, Tree Committee could supply a second opinion.
2 Commissioner Vieler - Couldn't the Eucalyptus be retained even after Redwoods are 60'
3 tall? Can they co- exist?
4 Steve Arago - Yes, the trees can co- exist.
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Feibusch and seconded by Commissioner Healy to
7 recommend to the City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a
8 Rezoning to Planned Unit District and Historic District Overlay, and a General Plan
9 Amendment based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed in the
10 staff report dated January 12, 1999 and the site plan dated February 18, 1999.
11
4 . 12 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
13 Commissioner Broad: Yes
14 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
1`5 Commissioner Glass: Yes
1 - 6 Commissioner Healy: Yes
17 Commissioner Vieler: Yes
18 Chairman Bennett: Yes
19
20 Findings for Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact•
21
22 1. An Initial Study was prepared, proper notice was provided in accordance with
23 CEQA and local guidelines for the approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
24 to establish this use.
25
26 2. Based upon the revised Initial Study, dated February 3, 1999, and any comments
27 received, there is no substantial evidence that the project as mitigated would have
28 a significant effect upon the environment.
29
30 3. As concluded in the (revised) Initial Study, dated February 3, 1999, the project
31 does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the Fish and
32 Game code, either individually or cumulatively.
33
34 4. A mitigation and monitoring program has been prepared and will monitor the
35 impacts that have been prepared for the project to reduce the impacts to a level of
36 insignificance.
37..
-38 5. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List
39 compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
40
41 6. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Negative Declaration and considered
42 any and all comments before making a recommendation on the project.
43
44 7. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public
45 review at the City of Petaluma, Planning Department, City Hall, 11 English
46 Street, Petaluma, California.
4
Planning Commission Minutes - February 23, 1999
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
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Mitigation Measures
All mitigation measures, as identified in the revised Initial Study filed February 3, 1999,
for the Martin Historic Plaza proposal, are herein incorporated.
Findings for the General Plan Amendment
1. The proposed Amendment is in conformance with the Petaluma General Plan and
will help to implement goals, objectives and programs of the General Plan relating
to the development of underutilized properties and encouraging development
within the Urban Limit Line.
The. 1.9-acre parcel is underutilized as the existing single -story residence is
unoccupied. The Mixed Use designation allows a broader range of uses to be
developed at this site.
2. The proposed Amendment is deemed to be in the public interest to provide for
orderly development of appropriate office and professional uses.
The Mixed Use designation at this location will not create a nuisance to existing
adjacent commercial and residential properties.
3. The proposed Amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the
General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected.
The Mixed Use designation at this site incorporates the policies to develop
underutilized properties of the General Plan. Additionally, the proposal adheres to
the design guidelines within the General Pan that are required of properties which
are along Gateway designations.
4. The potential impacts of the proposed Amendment have been assessed and have
been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
The Mixed Use designation will not create any negative traffic impacts to the
existing Level of Service at the intersection of Ellis Street and Sturcon 'Way or
Ellis Street and East Washington. The detailed traffic study indicates that there
would be less of an impact to these intersections if office /commercial uses were to
be developed at this site than if residential uses were to occur at this location.
5. The proposed Amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
5
Planning Commission Minutes - February 23, 1999
1 In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act,
2 an Initial Study was prepared for the General Plan Amendment proposed for the
3 site from Urban High to Mixed Use. Based upon the Initial Study, a determination
4 was made that no significant environmental effects would result. A copy of this
5 Notice was published in the Argus Courier and provided to residents and
6 occupants within 300 ft. of the site, in compliance with CEQA requirements.
7
8 Findings for the Rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Historic District
9 Overlay
10
11 1. The proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., to classify and
12 rezone a 1.9 acre parcel, Assessor's Parcel Number 007 - 361 -022, to be known on
13 the Martin Historic Plaza, to Planned Unit District (PUD) is in general conformity
-.14 with the Petaluma General Plan.
15
16 The proposed professional uses comply with the Mixed Use General Plan
17 designation which allows a combination of residential, commercial or retail uses
18 on one parcel. Additionally, this proposal incorporates the policies and guidelines
19 of the Historic District Guidelines of Article 17 as well as the Planned Unit
20 District of Article 19A of the Zoning Ordinance.
21
- 22 2.
The public necessity, convenience and general welfare clearly permit and will be
23
furthered by the proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, reclassifying and
^ -: 24
rezoning the Martin Historic Plaza site to PUD.
25
r
"tx..26
The Planned Unit District Design Guidelines describe permitted and conditional
27
uses as well as those uses which would not be allowed to be established at this
28
location. This list of uses prevents the creation of any nuisance to the existing
.'29
adjacent commercial and residential uses.
30
31 3.
The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been
satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
33
Declaration to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance, potential impacts
34
generated by the proposed Martin Historic Plaza PUD.
35
36
In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act,
37
an Initial Study was prepared for the rezoning of the site from R -1 6,500 One
38
Family District to Planned Unit District. Based upon the Initial Study, a
39
determination was made that no significant environmental effects would result. A
40
copy of this Notice was published in the Argus Courier and provided to residents
41
and occupants within 300 ft. of the site, in compliance with CEQA requirements.
42
43 4.
The subject property has a number of structures having a special historic
44
architectural and aesthetic interest and value, which would qualify it as a Historic
45
District.
6
Planning Commission Minutes - February 23. 1999
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
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The creation of a Planned Unit District (PUD) at this location specifically intends
to re -use an underutilized historic structure at this location. The PUD allows the
retention of existing structures which have been deemed to be significant to the
Petaluma area.
5. The proposed rezoning is in conformance with the Petaluma General Plan and will
help to implement goals, objectives and programs of the General Plan relating to
the preservation of Petaluma's historical heritage.
Establishing a Historic District Overlay formally signifies that the structures at
this location are prominent landmarks. The preservation of these structures
ensures that they will remain as part of Petaluma's heritage enhance its character.
6. The subject property has one or more individual structures or other features
having a special character or special historical, architectural, or aesthetic interest
or value, as landmarks.
The creation of a Planned Unit District (PUD) at this location specifically intends
to re -use an underutilized historic structure at this location. The PUD allows the
retention of existing structures which have been deemed to be significant to the
Petaluma area.
7. The subject property has one or more area containing a number of structures
having special character or special historical architectural or aesthetic interesting
value, and constituting district sections of the City, as historic districts.
The creation of a Planned Unit District (PUD) at this location specifically intends
to re -use an underutilized historic structure at this location. The PUD allows the
retention of existing structures which have been deemed to be significant to the
Petaluma area.
8. The subject property shall be subject to the control and standards contained in
Article 17 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance.
The preservation of the structures at this location and the PUD guidelines ensures
that any additional interior or exterior modification will be regulated by Article 17
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Findings for approval of the PUD Development Plan
1. The proposed Martin Historic Plaza results in a more desirable use of land and a
better physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning
district or combination of zoning districts.
7
Planning Commission Minutes - Februan 23. 1999
1 The proposed PUD will allow proposed office uses that are compatible with the
2 existing surrounding residential and commercial uses. Design guidelines have
3 been prepared to ensure that the architecture of the proposed buildings reflect the
4 existing design of the two -story house and pump house. The project has been
5 conditioned to underground overhead utility lines, which will result in a more
6 attractive streetscape.
7
8 2
9
10
11
12
.13
' 14
15
16
17
18
1.9
20
21
..:22
24
25
V. 26
27
28
-29
30
:. 31
32
33
34
35
36
;37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The proposed Martin Historic Plaza development plan is proposed on property
which has a suitable relationship to one or more thoroughfares (East Washington
Street, Ellis Street), and said thoroughfares with the improvements herein
required, are adequate to carry any additional traffic generated by the
development.
The Mixed Use designation will not create any negative traffic impacts to the
existing Level of Service at the intersection of Ellis Street and Sturcon Way or
Ellis Street and East Washington. The detailed traffic study indicates that there
would be less of an impact to these intersections if commercial uses '..vere to be
developed at this site than if residential uses were to occur at this location.
3. The plan for the proposed Martin Historic Plaza development presents a unified
and organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are
appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby properties, particularly the existing
residents of the multi - family housing to the north of the proposal and commercial
uses to the west of the proposal. Adequate landscaping and screening is included
to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. Conditions have been incorporated
requiring design and development standards that are compatible with neighboring
developments.
4. Adequate available public and private spaces are designated on the PUD
Development Plan. Through mitigation measures and project conditions, adequate
building setbacks and other project amenities are provided.
The PUD provides for specific design criteria and development standards which
regulate the proposed development at this site.
5. The development of the subject Martin Historic Plaza project in the manner
proposed by the applicant, and as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the
public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City, and will be in keeping with
the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations of the City of Petaluma, with
the Petaluma General Plan.
The project, as conditioned, complies with the applicable provisions of the
Municipal Code and the General. Both the Fire Marshal and Engineering
Department have prepared conditions of approval to address fire safety issues, and
design criteria for the construction of the buildings.
8
Planning Commission Minutes - February 23. 1999
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
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
6. The Martin Historic Plaza project will help the City further the objectives, policies
and programs of the Community Character Element of the General Plan to:
Objectives
0) Preserve Petaluma's architectural heritage;
(k) Retain the unique qualities and architectural flavor of downtown.
Programs:
(24) Formally identify significant historic buildings and areas.
(26) Create one or more historic preservation district(s).
7. The Martin Historic Plaza project is designed to be compatible with surrounding
uses because it will not result in a more intensive use of the land with
characteristics that are incompatible with neighboring commercial and multi-
family residential uses.
Notice of Estimated Fees, Dedications, and other Exactions
Pursuant to Section 66020 of the California Government Code, the applicant/developer
has the statutory right to protest development fees, dedication and reservation
requirements, and other exactions included in this project approval as follows:
Sewer Connection in the amount of $2,550.00 per building
➢ Water Connection in the amount of $12,440.00 for a 2' meter
➢ Community Facilities fees in the estimated amount of $22,319.00
Storm Drainage Impact fees : To be determined
➢ School District fees: Please contact the School District at 778 -4621
➢ Traffic Mitigation fees in the estimated amount of $42,529.94
Conditions for PUD Approval
1. All mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with approval of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (Resolution N.C.S.) for the Martin Historic Plaza
project are incorporated herein by reference as conditions of project approval.
2. All requirements of the Building Division shall be met, including the following:
a. Grading must be certified when completed to indicate compliance with
approved plans and will be required for occupancy.
b. Certify pad elevations before building slab on grade is poured.
C. Mixed occupancy separation as described in Chapter 3 of the 1994 UBC
must be followed.
d. All roofing shall be "B" rated or better per Ordinance No. 1744/1988.
9
Planning Commission Minutes - February '_3. 1999
1
e. Show site drainage and grading topography.
2
f. Indicate all utilities on site plan.
3
g. Responsible party to sign plans.
4
h. Submit soils report to verify foundation design.
5
i. Indicate group occupancy, type of construction, square footage.
6
j. Plans must show compliance to 1994 UBC, UPC, UMC, and 1993 NEC.
7
Plans must also show compliance to current Title 24 Energy Conservation
8
and/or Disabled Access Requirements.
9
k. Provide structural calculations for all non - conventional design items.
10
1. Soils with expansion index greater than 20 required special design
11
foundation per Uniform Building Code 1803.2.
12
m. Demolition permit required to remove any structure.
13
: 14 3.
All requirements of the Engineering Department shall be met, including the
1'5
following:
16
17
a. Provide SCWA approval for drainage improvements.
18
b. Provide detailed grading plan for improvements on site including street
19
improvements, utilities, earthwork, drainage, and all transitions at property
20
21
lines.
C. All existing and proposed easements associated with the subject parcel are
22
to be included on the plans.
23
d. Drainage into existing waterways shall be approved by City of Petaluma.
124
e. Provide fully dimensioned site plan as a portion of improvement plans
25
including distances from property lines to buildings and parking. Provide
_ 26
copy of current vesting deed to verify access easement across adjacent
- 27
southern property to subject parcel.
28
f. Locations, direction of flow and names, if available, of both natural an d
'29
artificial water courses and ponding areas, or areas of periodic inundation
30
on the parcel being divided and on adjacent properties which might affect
31
the design of the applicant's proposal; provisions for proposed drainage
32
and flood control measures.
3
g. Provide location of existing and/or proposed building setback line(s) from
34
top -of -bank of Washington Creek.
35
h. All existing overhead utility lines and poles on -site and on peripheral
36
streets shall be identified. Existing overhead utilities shall be placed
37
underground.
38
i. Identify the location and size of existing and proposed sanitary sewer, fire
39
hydrants, water mains, and storm drains. Slopes and elevations of
40
proposed sewers and storm drains shall be indicated.
41
j. Unless waived by the Director of Engineering, a conceptual plan for
42
erosion control is required.
43
k. Report and Guarantee of Clear Title -- a current (not more than six months
44
old) title report by duly authorized title company naming the persons
45
whose consent is necessary for the preparation of such plans and for
10
Planning Commission Minutes - February 23, 1999
I dedications of streets, public places, etc., shoving all interests in ro e
2 existing easements, lease interests, etc. Said title report shall include a
3 clear concise metes and bounds description of the property.
4 1. If easements are necessary, either the easement exhibit or letter of intent to
5 grant such an easement from the responsible part will be required.
6 M. A final detailed geotechnical investigation shall be required and prepared
7 concurrently with the final grading and erosion control plans prepared by
8 the developer's engineer. These grading and erosion control plans shall be
9 reviewed and signed by a registered soils engineer.
10 n. Water pressure calculations shall be required for this development
I 1 verifying the system adequacy for fire flows and domestic service.
12 0. All work within the public right -of -way requires an excavation permit
13 from the Director of Public Works.
14 p. A separate water meter shall be required for landscape irrigation systems
15 or as required by staff.
16 q. Provide copy of the recorded document verifying access easement from
17 the Shopping Center parcel.
18
19 4. All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met, including the following:
20
21 a. Provide one fire extinguisher, 2AIOBC type, for each 3,000 square feet of
22 floor space, and/or a maximum travel distance of 75 feet.
23 b. Post address at or near main entry door - minimum four- (4) inch letters on
24 contrasting background.
25 C. Address locator required to be posted at or near. the driveway entrance.
26 Reflectorized numbers are acceptable. Location and design to be approved
27 by the Fire Marshal's office.
28 d. Buildings larger than 3,500 square feet in area or three stories or more in
29 height shall be protected by an automatic fire extinguishing system as
30 required by the Uniform Fire Code.
31 e. Fire hydrants shall be spaced at a maximum of 300 feet apart. Location
32 and type of fire hydrants are to be approved by the Fire Marshal's office.
33 f. Provide access, a minimum twenty (20) feet, exclusive of on street
34 parking, all asphalt surface with thirteen feet -six inches (13'6'') vertical
35 height clearance.
36 g. All lanes in which no parking is allowed, shall be designated by painting
37 curbs red. Where no curbs exist, signs approved by the fire marshal shall
38 be installed.
39 h. Add as a general note to plans:
40
41 1. No combustible construction is permitted above the foundation unless an
42 approved asphalt surfaced road is provided to within one hundred -fifty
43 (150') of the farthest point of a building or structure.
44
Planning Commission Minutes - February 23, 1999
1 2. All fire hydrants for the project must be tested. flushed, and in service
2 prior to the commencement of combustible construction on the site.
3
4 5. All requirements of the Planning Department shall be met, including:
5 y
6 a. The applicant shall pay the $35.00 Notice of Determination fee to the
7 Planning Department within 5 days of receiving approval from the City
8 Council. The check shall be made payable to the County of Sonoma.
9 b. The Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee shall review and
10 approve the following, prior to building permit issuance:
12 1) Public Area landscaping
13 2) Development Standards, including, but not limited, to: height of
14 the buildings; lot coverage; lot area and yard requirements; lighting;
15 fencing; and location of trash enclosures.
.16 3) Signs
17 4) Design Guidelines, including, but not limited, to: architectural
18 styles; building elevations; exterior features and materials; colors; visible
19 portions of the roof, all electrical and mechanical equipment, and all on-
20 site electrical, telephone and utility lines.
21
22 6. The applicants /developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or
23 any of its boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or
25 employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when
26 such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable
27 State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the
28 applicants /developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall
29 coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the
,30 City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City
31 bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good
'_.32 faith.
`33
.. ,.34 7. All redwee el trees shall be a minimum 15 gallon size.
35
36 8. When redwood trees reach a 60' height, the remaining Eucalyptus trees may be
37 removed only upon certification by an Arborist that the trees are diseased and
38 that the trees show visual signs of disease /decay. Pursuant to this condition, the
39 final review and approval to remove the trees shall be conducted by the Tree
40 Advisory Committee.
41
42 9. The Planning Department will consult with the City Traffic Engineer to determine
43 if the stop sign at Ellis Street and Sturcon Way can be relocated closer to Ellis
44 Street.
45
12
Plannin.- Commission Minutes - February 23. 1999
1 10. The Planning Commission approval is granted for the alternative plan (Plan 2),
2 not the original site plan.
3
4
5 NEW BUSINESS:
6 PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7
8 11. PARKWAY PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER (GATTI RETAIL); 701
9 SONOMA MOUNTAIN PARKWAY; FILE NO. SPC98065
10 REZ98006(ib)..
11
12 The proposal is to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and recommend to City
13 Council a Rezoning request from Agricultural (A) to Planned Unit District (PUD)
14 on a 7.13 acre parcel on the comer of Riesling Road and Sonoma Mountain
15 Parkway to establish a retail/commercial shopping center.
16
17 The plan shows approximately 80,254 square feet of shop space of which 55,000
18 square feet would be occupied by a grocery store. The remaining buildings would
19 likely be occupied by other retail and service uses.
20
21 Assistant Planner Borba presented the staff report.
22
23 The public hearing was opened.
24
25 SPEAKERS:
26
27 Commissioner Glass - How does the size of this project compare to other grocery stores
28 in area? (Answer - comparable in size (square footage).)
29 Bill White - G & W Management, Applicant - Proposal is from G &G Market, Santa
30 Rosa.
31 Commissioner Healy - Is parking at rear 'and sides primarily employee parking? Is
32 enough parking proposed?
33 Bill White - Parking very adequate, supplying more than required; has been through
34 SPARC two times and met with Parks Department for interface with the park project.
35 Steve Arago - Representative from Parks and Recreation Commission - Parks
36 Commission has worked with developer to coordinate the future park site, Junior College
37 site and this commercial site; park site now belongs to the city of Petaluma; good
38 pedestrian/bicycle circulation from Capri Creek to Sonoma Mountain parkway; developer
39 has been very cooperative, has agreed to build a "buffer zone" of plantings and link with
40 park site; parking at park boundary can be used by both park and retail users; developer
41 will plant on park property now for better integration with park is developed; park could
42 function as a detention basin.
43 Commissioner Broad - Will park need to be used as a detention basin?
44 Steve Arago - Existing detention pond is sized to handle this entire project.
13
Planning Commission Minutes - February 23, 1999
1 Commissioner Glass - Will City still collect Storm Mitigation Fees?
2 Planning Director Smith - Detention basin in the Urban Separator is sized for this
3 project, this would be above and beyond that required.
4 Commissioner Glass - Will the Storm Fee still be collected?
5 Planning Director Smith - No, it's a choice for developer to pay a fee or to provide
6 detention.
7 Commissioner Feibusch - Pleased with circulation through this area; path for
8 pedestrians and bikes flowing right into this center through the college; 100 unit
apartment access has been taken into account; project is necessary for northeast corner of
10 Petaluma, will cut down on trips to other parts of City; hopes all Commissioner's read
11 Sonoma County Water Agency information on detention ponds - they are not always
12 advantageous.
Y_3 Commissioner Vieler - Excellent project; any further SPARC review?
r _- ` 14 Planning Director Smith - Elevations have been looked at by SPARC two times; will
15 still need formal review by SPARC.
16 Commissioner Broad - Much better quality plan when project goes through Preliminary
17 SPARC review before Planning Commission; is there a material and color board
.18 available? Is proposal for stucco buildings with metal roof?
19 Frank Marinello - G &W Management - Large building is proposed to be concrete block
20 with tile roof, other buildings are frame/stucco, somewhat like adjacent Junior College
21 architecture.
22 Commissioner Broad - Are adjacent homes occupied now?
=23 Planning Director Smith - Many homes are occupied; notice has been sent to residents.
;24 Commissioner Broad Should hours of operation be regulated by Conditional Use
I .", 25 Permit? SPARC needs to look at lighting for glare into adjacent residential properties.
. :'16 Commissioner Glass - Will an additional Storm Drain Fees be paid to the City or not?
';27 Planning Director Smith - Storm Fees may be paid back to developer of Heritage
28 Subdivision.
.,-. Commissioner Glass - Likes this project, it is needed in this part of town.
'3o Commissioner Healy - Great need for this type of project in this area; thanks to Park and
- 31 Recreation Commission for all their work; agrees with Commissioner Broad on
`32 lighting/hours of operation; is it appropriate to specify hours of operation at this time?
, . "33 will the applicant agree to avoid heavy truck traffic on residential streets between certain
34 hours? Would like curb cuts to be wider than standard in the past; would not need to
35 return to Planning Commission after SPARC final review.
36 Bill White - Delivery trucks generally come in the early morning.
37 Commissioner Healy - Delivery hours w711 be discussed at the Council level.
38 Planning Director Smith - Recorded notices were part of deeds for adjacent apartment
39 project and single - family dwellings indicating plans for park, Jr. College and retail
2 .0 project.
I Commissioner Vieler - It wouldn't be a good idea to restrict hours for this shopping
42 center - l OPM is a reasonable hour.
43 Commissioner Feibusch - Don't want to restrict competitiveness - 7AM to IOPM is
44 realistic.
14
Planning Commission Minutes - February 23, 1999
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
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Chairman Bennett - Likes the project, there is a demonstrated need for this use;
appreciated the time /planning that has already gone into this project; most impacts are
mitigated; good proposed tenant (G &G Market).
Bill White - G &G is a family -owned business, good neighbor - will be operating the
store for many years; very service oriented.
Commissioner Broad - Approve hours of operation of 7AM to IOPM - include language
to allow additional hours of operation subject to staff review and approval (minor
Conditional Use Permit).
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Vieler and seconded by Commissioner Feibusch to
recommend to the City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Rezoning to allow a commercial shopping center to be constructed on a 7.13 acre portion
of the subject property based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed
in the staff report.
Commissioner Barrett: Yes
Commissioner Broad: Yes
Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
Commissioner Glass: Yes
Commissioner Healy: Yes
Commissioner Vieler: Yes
Chairman Bennett: Yes
Findings for Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts
1. An Initial Study was prepared, proper notice was provided in accordance with
CEQA and local guidelines for the approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
to establish the use.
2. Based on the Initial Study, which was posted from February 3, to February 23,
1999, and any comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the project
as mitigated would have a significant effect upon the environment.
3. As concluded in the attached Initial Study dated February 3, 1999, the project
does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the Fish and
Game code, either individually or cumulatively.
4. The project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List
complied by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
5. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Negative Declaration and considered .
any and all comments before making a recommendation on the project.
15
Planning Commission Minutes - February 23. 1999
1 6. The record of the proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public
2 review at the City of Petaluma, Planning Department, City Hall, 11 English
3 Street, Petaluma, California.
4
5 Mitigation Measures:
6
7 All mitigation measures, as identified in the Initial Study filed February 3, 1999, for the
8 Parkway Plaza commercial shopping center proposal, are herein incorporated.
9
10 Findings for the Rezoning to Planned Unit Development
1.1
12 1. The proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., to classify and
rezone a 7.13 acre parcel of Assessor's Parcel Number 137 - 070 -069, to be known
14 as the Parkway Plaza Shopping Center, to Planned Unit Development (PUD) is in
1.5 conformity with the Petaluma General Plan and the Corona/Ely Specific Plan
16 which calls for a shopping center development at this site.
17
I8 2. The public necessity, convenience and general welfare clearly permit and will be
19 furthered by the proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, reclassifying and
:20 rezoning the Parkway Plaza site to PUD.
;21
22 3. The requirements of the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been satisfied
2:3 through the preparation of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to
24 avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance, potential impacts generated by the
25 proposed Parkway Plaza Shopping Center.
`26
.7 Findings for approval of the PUD Development Plan
28
29 1. The proposed Parkway Plaza Shopping Center results in a more desirable use of
30 land and a better physical environment than would be possible under any single
,31 zoning district or combination of zoning districts. The PUD would provide a
32 group of retail and services uses adequate to supply the day - to-day needs of the
i ; '33 surrounding area.
. -34
35 2. The proposed Parkway Plaza Shopping Center development is proposed on a
`36 property which has a suitable relationship to one or more thoroughfares (Sonoma
37 Mountain Parkway, Riesling Road and Capri Creek Court) and said thoroughfares
38 with the improvements herein required, are adequate to carry any additional traffic
3 generated by the development. This site was designated for commercial
l.� (shopping center) development and the circulation system and environmental
41 analysis was designed to accommodate a retail center.
42
43 3. The plan for the Parkway Plaza Shopping Center development presents a unified
44 and organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are
45 appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby properties. Adequate landscaping
16
Planning Commission Minutes - February 23, 1999
1 and screening is included to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses.
2 Conditions have been incorporated requiring design and development standards
3 that are compatible with neighboring developments.
4
5 4. Adequate available public and private spaces are designated on the PUD
6 Development Plan. Through mitigation measures and project conditions,
7 adequate building setbacks and other project amenities are provided.
8
9 5. The development of the subject Parkway Plaza project in the manner proposed by
10 the applicant, and as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public welfare,
11 will be in the best interests of the City, and will be in keeping with the intent and
12 spirit of the zoning regulations of the City of Petaluma, with the Petaluma General
13 Plan and with the Corona/Ely Specific Plan.
14
15 6. The Parkway Plaza Shopping Center project is designed to be compatible with
16 surrounding uses.
17
18 7. The Parkway Plaza Shopping Center project will help the City further the
19 objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan by providing jobs and
20 furthering economic goals.
21
22 Conditions for PUD Approval
23
24 .l. All mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with approval of the Mitigated
25 Negative Declaration (Resolution N.C.S.) for the Parkway Plaza
26 commercial shopping center project are incorporated herein by reference as
27 conditions of project approval. The project shall also comply with all applicable
28 mitigations specified for properties within the Corona/Ely Specific Plan Area as
29 contained in Resolution No. 89 -122 N.C.S., which certified, approved and
30 adopted the Environmental Impact Report for the Corona/Ely Specific Plan.
31
32 2. At the time of final review by Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee
33 (SPARC) for approval of the PUD Development Plan, written PUD Development
34 Standards shall be met and shown on plans for building permit approval.
35
36 3. All requirements of the Building Division, Fire Marshal, Engineering
37 (Attachments 12,13 & 14), Police Department and Public Works Departments
38 shall be met and reflected on plans submitted for development permit issuance.
39
4o 4. In accordance with the provisions of the Petaluma's Municipal Code, the
41 applicant shall pay City Special Development Fees. If applicable, at time of
42 building permit application, including, but not limited to, the following: sewer
43 connection, water connection, community facilities development, storm drainage
44 impact, school facilities and traffic mitigation fees (Attachment 16).
45
17
Planning Commission Minutes - February 23. 1999
1 5. The applicants /developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or
2 any of its boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
3 action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or
4 employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when
5 such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable
6 State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the
7 applicants /developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall
3 . coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the
City from participating in a'defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City
10 bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good
11 faith.
12
13 6 Hours of operation for all businesses within the shopping center shall be between
.14 7AM and IOPM. Any business may propose extended hours through means of a
15 Minor Conditional Use Permit (staff approval).
16
17 7. Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee shall review lighting plans to
18 insure minimum light /glare to adjacent residential properties.
19
20
21 COMMISSION BUSINESS:
22
23 DISCUSSION ITEM:
2 4
Zs Ill. PETALUMA HOTEL; 205 KENTUCKY STREET, AP N ®. 006 -275-
26 023, FILE N®. CUP97OO6 /SPC97O16 (ed).
27
28 Discussion on the location and appearance of the installation of a
29 telecommunication system on the roof of the Petaluma Hotel. This Conditional
30 Use Permit was approved by the Planning Commission on 9/23/97.
.31
s 32 DISCUSSION:
33
34 Commissioner Healy - Wanted to review this because what is being installed does not
35 look like what was approved by the Planning Commission in 1997; the hotel is starting to
36 look like an "old Russian consulate building" with all the large antennas.
37 Commissioner Broad - Voted against this proposal in 1997 - did not feel this was an
H appropriate use in an historic district; original staff report supported flag poles used for
39 antennas; cannot understand how staff could change their recommendations and allow
40 design concept to substantially change; this looks like a "bait and switch" tactic by
41 Sprint; it is clearly not what was approved by the Planning Commission.
42 Russ Laughlin - Sprint - Flagpoles were not structurally viable; what direction should
43 Sprint take?
44 Commissioner Healy - Can antennas be mounted on flagpoles?
18
Planning Commission Minutes - February 23, 1999
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
Russ Laughlin - Sprint's structural engineer indicated the antenna could not be mounted
on the existing wooden flagpole; could look into making antennas look more like a
flagpole.
Commissioner Vieler - How are antennas attached to the roof?
Commissioner Glass - Was this site (in an historic district) geographically necessary?
Russ Laughlin - The site works with other existing locations.
Commissioner Glass - Could it be moved to another location?
Russ Laughlin - Hasn't done research on moving the site.
Chairman Bennett - Is there a reason why a flagpole design won't work?
Russ Laughlin - Because of the connection to parapet structure.
Commissioner Healy - How hard did Sprint's structural engineer try to make the original
design work? Would like to see this installed as approved.
Commissioner Broad - If a tripod type antenna could be designed, why couldn't a
flagpole -type antenna be designed? Further design is needed by Sprint to comply with
Planning Commission approval.
Commissioner Broad - Sprint needs to work on a feasible design to comply with
original design or create a superior design.
Commissioner Healy - Wants to see a flag flying on hotel roof, if Sprint can't do what
they proposed and was approved, that is Sprint's problem to overcome.
Commissioner Broad - Didn't expect antenna would be as wide as what is installed;
original drawings did not indicate that.
Chairman Bennett Planning Commission is close to requiring removal of the antennas;
Sprint needs to redesign and make the antennas work as they originally requested and was
approved by Planning Commission.
IV. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS (BICYCLE/TREE).
Commissioner Broad was appointed to the Bicycle Committee.
Commissioner Barrett was appointed to the Tree Committee.
V. LIAISON REPORTS - None.
35
36 ADJOURNMENT: 9:30 PM
37
s \pc- p1anVninutes \0223
[Ls