Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/11/199271 City of Petaluma. Planning Commission Minutes REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL February 11, 1992 7:00 P.M. PETALUMA, CA COMMISSIONERS: Bennett, Libarle *, Nelson, Parkerson, Rahman, Tarr (left at 8:30 PM), Thompson STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director Bonne Gaebler, Associate Planner Jennifer Barrett; Associate Planner Dede Dolan, Assistant Planner Chairman MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 28, 1992 MEETING were approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Chairman Libarle thanked Commissioner Rahman for cookies brought to the meeting. CORRESPONDENCE: Residential Development Map distributed; petition opposing freeway interchange at Corona Road signed by 12 citizens; letters from Vivian Look, Executive Secretary of LAFCO, and Vincenza Scarpaci on the South Petaluma Blvd. Specific Plan; Pedestrian Pocket handout information distributed by League of California Cities. APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read. LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Persons commenting orally or in writing are advised to raise all pertinent issues at this stage of review so that possible solutions may be implemented or adopted at the earliest opportunity. If you challenge the action taken by the City of Petaluma in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public review process, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the conclusion of the public review process. 72 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 1992 OLD BUSINESS I. SOUTH PETALUMA BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN (jb). 1. Consideration of recommendations to City Council on the proposal. to prepare a Specific Plan for South Petaluma Boulevard Area. (Continued from January 28, 1992) (The public hearing was closed 1/28/92) SPEAKERS AND DISCUSSION: Director Tuft read excerpts from the General Plan regarding Specific Plans. Staff report was presented by Jennifer Barrett. Commissioner Thompson advised the Commission and staff that he had :reviewed the Planning Commission tape from the previous meeting regarding this item. Commissioner Nelson asked, because of correspondence received, if this Specific Plan would overburden the Planning Department. Director Tuft replied no. Police Chief Dennis DeWitt asked to withdraw the memo from the Police Department regarding this item; his department thought they were commenting on an EIR, not a proposal for a Specific Plan; comments were premature; apologized for any inconvenience; would like to comment on the project -at the appropriate time. Commissioner Thompson enjoyed reading the memo; felt comments were informative and gave him something to think about that he'd never realized: before. Commissioner Bennett was offended by the memo; felt it was a misinformed piece of communication. Commissioner Tan agreed with Commissioner Thompson; enjoyed reading comments. Commissioner Bennett - Alternate A of staff's discussion of redevelopment issues seems contradictory; asked for clarification of preservation vs. removing existing uses. Jennifer Barrett clarified that it should be restated to "examine the potential compatibility" rather than "displace ". Commissioner Rahman was also uncomfortable with the term "displacing existing uses; if use is moved, where does it go? Should we be looking at all of Petaluma, which would be the entire General Plan? Commissioner Tarr thanked staff for meeting with the County regarding this Specific Area and' to know if anything positive came out of the meeting? Director Tuft - she and Kurt Yeiter met with five planners including the Planning Director from Sonoma County Planning; talked about minor discrepancies between our urban limit line, their existing General Plan land use designations and zoning; they anticipate phasing out A -2 zoning: and gave commercial designation on General Plan because of existing uses; County's primary concern is existing uses; understand development can occur in conformance with the General Plan; they also don't support an interchange at Kastania Road- and are willing to put that in writing with the City to Caltrans; a county -wide director's meeting is being arranged to discuss long -range General Plan goals of the County. Commissioner Rahman was particularly offended by a letter received regarding extending the urban limit line and the threat that if we don't give urban limit line expansion they will put storage facilities at Petaluma's gateway. 2 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 1992 Director Tuft - proposed development wasn't discussed; doesn't know if County would allow development or not. Commissioner Thompson - how old is the County's General Plan? Kurt Yeiter - it was last updated in 1989; showed maps of the area; if we plan the area and it later is: not annexed, the County can provide "joint powers agreements ", which are special contracts `between them and other cities that could be exercised with the City of Petaluma; both cities would decide together; it would fall to Petaluma to prepare a plan for County review; - have it adopted, and then ask them to pursue it. Joint meetings of review boards would benecessary, which is a very cumbersome process. Commissioner Parkerson - are you suggesting as part of the. Specific Plan review that we should also be looking at how the area `beyond the urban limit line be planned? Kurt Yeiter - our recommendation is that we address the area outside the urban limit line only for methods of preserving in openspace or agricultural uses. (� Commissioner Bennett favors proceeding with the Specific Plan; concerned with some CO people's misunderstandings of what a Specific Plan is and does; City has opportunity to master plan this area and set out guidelines; great concern with the gateway to the City which has remained essentially unchanged for 20 years. Commissioner Tarr not sure if a Specific Plan is needed in this area at this time; do we have too ;many things going - are we planning too much in this area? Is staff sufficient to handle planning? Who bears the costs? Director. Tuft - if done through the Specific Plan, process is paid completely by private monies; if work done within the context of the General Plan, the City will bear the cost and won't have the same specificity. Commissioner Tarr regarding the gateway, why the rush if we've already waited 20 years? Commissioner. Bennett - the gateway has been continually identified as a problem and priority. Commissioner Rahman - how gateway looks is subjective; what do we mean by 'upscale" ? Doesn't want to turn area into something people don't want; following up on cost of the Specific Plan and. the letter from Haystack Landing, are they willing to compromise? If we tell them' we're not willing to fully incorporate the area outside the urban limit line, will they still fund the Specific Plan? Director Tuft - we haven't negotiated that. If they are not willing to fund the Specific Plan, it will be shelved. Commissioner Bennett agreed that terminology regarding the gateway was subjective; supports the planning process because it give the community. an opportunity to decide what . it wants; agrees with Commissioner Rahman about the letter from Haystack Landing Associates being offensive and a clumsy attempt at a threat. Commissioner Nelson in regards to the funding of the Specific Plan, people who develop out there need to understand the City is not willing to impact the rest of Petaluma just for this area; there will be additional needs, such as police and fire protection, for that area, and it will have to pay for itself. Commissioner Parkerson - basic issue is ability to plan this area; Specific Plan is an extraordinary tool for the 'City to use to establish a program; gives an opportunity to control land immediately beyond urban limit line; torn between Alternate A and C under Issue #3; supports the Specific Plan. Commissioner Bennett agreed with short-term vs. long -term; feels we're speaking more of long -term evolution of area, not immediately moving out existing uses. Commissioner Parkerson - we need to make a choice so staff and consultants have a direction 'to follow. Commissioner Thompson - concerned with maintaining river viability and tonnage; is there new industry coming to produce more tonnage? Commissioner Parkerson - the river and gateway give special focus to the Specific Plan; without them, it would be just another plan. 73 3 7-r City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 1992 Commissioner Bennett - in terms of trying to get businesses here, there is a Chamber River Committee working to help insure that river tonnage tags up. Commissioner Rahman knows how the River Committee would be working -along with the Specific Plan; ,how long does a Specific Plan take - would it not overlap with the General Plan or can they be done in concert? Director Tuft - would not anticipate a General. Plan update going into specificity of displacement of specific uses; specific plan allows detail of analysis and can respond to concerns and details with solutions. Commissioner Parkerson - regarding the expansion of the urban limit line, previous discussion was that the Commission did not want the line expanded; there should be a method for preserving lands beyond urban limit line. Commissioner Bennett - do we currently have, per the General Plan,, a.300 foot open space buffer? Could there by any negotiations with owners for an easement or trade -off within the 300 foot buffer inside the urban limit line for property outside the urban limit line? Director Tuft - that is something we could address with the Specific Plan, Commissioner Nelson questioned how bicycle paths fit in with the Specific. Plan; hates to see this area be traffic- intense. Director Tuft - this would be looked at in the Specific Plan. Commissioner Parkerson - there is also a policy in the General Plan to provide as many bike paths as possible. Commissioner Rahman agrees with future transit stops and would like to add to it plans for adequate parking facilities; being this close to a big city, people will commute and we need to plan for parking. Commissioner Parkerson - #2 provides more creative opportunities for providing access, bikes or transit; #1 and #3 promote whole concept with cars; south crossing is an idea that needs to be looked at very closely. Commissioner Bennett - until we're without them, we still need to plan for the auto; feels we need .to ,plan for both auto and pedestrians. Commissioner Parkerson - trying to say that the. Planning Commissioners ought to be careful with approach and try to be more creative. Commissioner Thompson - something also needs to' be done to address the Lakeville mess; southern crossing needs to be looked at. Commissioner Rahman intersection at Lakeville is frustrating and also dangerous; can't get rid of cars in this society; even if we plan a pedestrian pocket, people will still get in their cars to go shopping in other cities. Commissioner Tarr - wanted clarification of what "area- wide" wetland conservation plan is meant under' Issue #5 (wetland resources). Jennifer Barrett - that is meant to address all inter - related channels and wetlands in the Specific Phan area in a comprehensive manner. Commissioner Rahman - is there a time problem getting a decision from the Corps of Engineers? Jennifer Barrett - we don't anticipate too much of a problem; Corps is very slow but does have a new policy to give a final determination within .90 days. Straw votes were taken on all issues: Issue 1 -yes Issue 2 - yes Issue 3 - yes, as long as there's an explanation of where these uses may end up Issue 4 - yes Issue 5 - yes Other Issues - yes to all 5, as amended. Commissioner- Rahman - loves Sonoma County as well as Petaluma; doesn't want to put a use into "someone else's backyard ". M City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 1992 75 Commissioner Bennett - wants to keep flexibility in Specific Plan. ISSUE #1: AUTHORIZE THE PREPARATION OF SPECIFIC PLAN A motion was made by Commissioner Tan and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to recommend to the City Council authorization to proceed with a Specific Plan for the South Petaluma Boulevard area, based on the amended recommendations listed below: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes, because its the best way to protect this area. COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Abstained (V) COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes Co COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes ISSUE #2: EXPANSION OF THE URBAN BOUNDARY Recommendation: Establish the Specific Plan boundary for ultimate urban services and concentrated study to not exceed the area designated in the General Plan as the specific plan area. Lands which lie outside the Urban Limit Line shall not be considered for extension of services or urban use, but should be considered for methods of preserving these lands in open space or urban separator or wetland protection. ISSUE #3: LAND USE COMPAT IBILITY /ECONOMIC VIABILITY Recommendation: The Specific Plan should emphasize policies that provide shorter -term protection and enhancement of existing uses and a longer -term redevelopment strategy in which the existing transportation - servicing uses may be phased out F'&pIaeed. The Plan should study the potential to e€fec4&4 displace existing industrial /thoroughfare- related uses and identify appropriate sites for these uses. Improvements of the gateway image is a high priority in both the short -term and long -term scenarios. Alte�ate -A: -- �= ke- �peei€ic- Plan- �l}ould-- e�tp€i� size- Po€icies� -a�d- land - Aso-- pazteFrrs- �h }eh meo por�te- ed- use -c ee}�ts- l�at- old -- �� o-F- �rtl�a e- the - confl i - iabi�i - ©€ ex}st�r�g- �rse�.- -= lie- �eei €ie - glace -�i ©trill- e�side� - redevelopmer�� - n�v�- de�logme�t- ©n€y irr app�epri�te- �Feas- �he�o-�dng- teF�rcompa�ibt€ i�}- enrr�- eris��Fed- �s- er- pr�a�y- ©bjeetive: The --- Sph-aci €ie --- Flan-- 6hould --- €u45 ex&FRine--4he -- potexti € - -�d- -lisp €acs - -e istt�g- -uses Imp r- ove�ent -t� € -- too-- gate�a�- image- � ©trld-- be- g�en -e q�l- pF }o�i�y -�i�h- rho- -ol�j eetive -a€ eFlhane�g- �: FK - 1 -- sum© rt} ng- � ©rrt- i��red- �ea�y-- trrdust� - trn�portntren- €ees -- and- he�:vy eom , &Fero €-rtee - er4ented -trse Alteff mtive- B-The- wouW- maintaiii-+h be -o-- sec -er dary -pfi$r -ice the -afea: - pelie- ies --a -n d- land - use -}gat -teFns- r ie itlr- e- a.rn€ri1-- evnlentien --ef - the-- pete�al pFOVement -o€ -tom gateway- image - should Altemative- 0 ---------- Fie- Spee3lie -I? Ian - mould -� pl3 ize- policies -- and - land - use -Pa erns whieh�r�ide- a�- }FFrp�t}rs -- €car- �edevel ©pmo-At c€- tie- �Fea- to-�ro�ide�er- �oFo-cp -secle -uses that - Ifl �tg � €ieo-F�tl - rmpr ©ve- tl�e -ga e;v�y- ��nage - the - area - -tl� fri ary- ebj-eetive. The- e € €ects- Qf- di�plae }ng- existing -cses- should- be- ex��ned- w3tbrFr- t�e� ©FEte�c� o-f- pF ©vidtng €aF- ixtcF }� -eso-- and- 1 ©frg- teF�rrc- development- se�ieFFEes� 5 76 City of Petaluma ISSUE #4: TRANSPORTATION Recommendations: 1. The Specific Plan should address Caltrans' plans to eliminate the South Petaluma Boulevard interchange and build a new interchange south of the urban limit. The Specific Plan should explore alternatives for improvements to the interchange at South Petaluma Boulevard (in consultation with Caltrans) in order to - discourage sprawl. 2. The Specific Plan should fully explore the probability of a future transit stop along the railroad right -of -way and provision of adequate parking facilities. The Plan should preserve the maximum flexibility for future use of the railroad right -of -way and encourage transit use in the land use patterns, public facilities and design standards. 3. The Specific Plan should further evaluate the feasibility and need for the extension of Caulfield Lane ( "southern crossing ") to serve the planning area, and if needed, should identify the appropriate alignment for connection to Petaluma Boulevard South. ISSUE #5: WETLAND RESOURCES Recommendations: 1. An area -wide wetland conservation plan should be included in the Specific. Plan. 2. The draft Specific Plan should contain a jurisdictional determination from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the wetland status of properties within the planning area. OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Recommendations: 1. A quarry reclamation plan should shall be prepared, reviewed (revised as necessary) and incorporated into the Specific Plan to identify future land uses, compatibility with adjacent, uses, access and circulation improvements, design standards, future utility needs, and financing of public improvements /infrastructure. 2. The Specific Plan should consider opportunities for development of a "pedestrian pocket" (i.e. high density, transit oriented) land use scenario within the planning area. 1 3. A range of residential densities should be explored in the Specific Plan process for the western portion of the planning area designated for residential use. 4. The Specific Plan should consider the feasibility of maintaining or expanding commercial use of the river within the .planning area. Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 1992 0 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 1992 5. The Specific Plan should further evaluate and include measures and policies to enhance and protect prehistoric resources and the historic character of the area. NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING II. ELKS LODGE, CADER LANE INDUSTRIAL PARK, PART OF AP NO. 005 -004- 41; FILE NO. CUP92001(dd). CD 1. Consideration of Initial Study. 2. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of an Elks (� lodge, a commercial recreation facility, in an M -L (Light Industrial) zone. co The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS AND DISCUSSION: Staff report was presented by Dede Dolan. I Commissioner Bennett - is parking not conditioned? Are 172 spaces adequate? Dick Lied 1 Bodega Avenue, applicant representative - wants to revise plans to add a bigger pool area and enclose it to make area more usable. Commissioner Bennett - questioned the amount of daytime usage. Mr. Lieb daytime uses somewhat limited, except for weekend uses such as weddings, which would somewhat impact parking. Commissioner Bennett - the use has a potential for fairly intensive daytime usage. Mr. Lieb as with the Vet's Building, only the hall is going to be leased out; younger members of the Elks Lodge feel the fitness center is more of what they want from the lodge then the present bar facilities as well as better parking being available; redoing existing lodge very expensive. Commissioner Rahman - feels this will be a nice enhancement for Petaluma, instead of citizens using the Community Center in Rohnert Park. Director Tuft - wants to add conditions regarding public vs. private use of the Elks lodge as well as the standard CUP recall to the Commission to address use of the building if problems do occur. Commissioner Nelson - feels it necessary to add appropriate security measures. Director Tuft - revisions to original plan can be addressed through SPARC (larger pool and enclosure). Mr. Lieb - hall must be rented for men and women; present plans show pool facilities having only restrooms for men; revision would allow women's restrooms to be added. Chairman Libarle - has been a longtime member of the Elks Lodge as well as his father; sad to see facility having to move from downtown. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes VA 77 n T e. flTaT f . .. .. -.. _. , .. ... .. . _ -• -_._^ - 1.-.. ]$ City of Petaluma CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Absent Findin : Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 1992 1. On the basis of the Initial Stud and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation 1. The applicant shall obtain Fish and Game input on the proposed landscaping plans prior to review by SPARC. The 25' rear setback area shall be developed as a habitat buffer prior to the issuance of building permits. The picnic area shall be located outside of this buffer area. 2. The applicant shall submit to the City the required Fish and Game Fees '($1,275.00) in the form of a check made out to the County of Sonoma within three days of project approval. The Notice of Determination must be filed with the Fish and Game fees with the County prior to the issuance of building permits. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to approve the Elks Lodge, based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed below: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER. BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Absent Findings: The proposed Elks Lodge, as designed in conformance with the Cader Lane Industrial Park Design Guidelines, will conform to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed. Elks Lodge, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent, goals, and policies of the Community Character, Transportation, Local Economy, Parks and Recreation Chapters of the Petaluma General Plan as discussed in the body of the staff report. 3. The proposed. Elks Lodge will-not -eon kct wit"djac-ent -uses- becauseig�eak- time -foF the-lo ge- -be--duFiRg- neu- bu-SiRess- r-s and will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. The area is appropriate for this type of use because of the intensity of the use requires a great deal of land to provide adequate parking. 1 .1,: �5r2 ?4? R.. i..,..}._at F= !S?pt.raq ^�. &T....c. .i -xr :.. �e.r•.n. -.rt .. ..we... .v..K+..a........ ..... — City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 1992 79 Conditions 1. All conditions of the tentative map must be satisfied and the Final Map recorded prior to the issuance of building permits for this site. 2. The project shall be subject to review by SPARC with emphasis on the following: a. - screening of RV sites from adjacent properties and the roadway. bi minimizing the visual impact of the parking lot through landscaping. C. compliance with the Cader Lane Industrial Park Design Guidelines Co 3. The applicant shall submit to Planning staff for review and approval, a description of C times the facility will be available for rental those areas which can be rented and the capacity of those areas. Include any other restrictions which apply to the rental of the facilities. 4. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the City Transportation Engineer: a. The plans shall include sidewalks as conditioned under tentative map approval and as shown on the master landscape plan. b. The driveways should be modified to provide a 10' radius to allow for easier turning movements subject to approval by the Transportation Engineer. C., The site plan should include signs to direct RV's through the parking lot, subject to approval by the Transportation Engineer. 5. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the City Fire Marshal: a., Provide one fire extinguisher 2A rated ABC dry chemical type for each 3,000 square feet of floor space. b. - Provide one 40 -BC rated dry chemical type extinguisher in kitchen. C. Buildings 3,500 square feet and larger shall be protected by an automatic fire extinguishing system as required by Section 10.306A of the 1988 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code. d. A minimum of two sets of sprinkler plans are required. e. Post address at or near main entry door - minimum two inch letters. f. Provide occupancy load sign (Occupancy ) in assembly areas. g. No extension cords. All equipment and app i�'ances shall be direct plug -in. h. Provide metal or flame retardant plastic waste cans. i. Provide fire hydrants as required by the Fire Marshal's office. One fire hydrant(s) required for project. j.. Provide alarm system for sprinkler. Alarm system is to be monitored by an approved central receiving station. k:. Provide KNOX box for key control located on building as required by the Fire Marshal. 1. All curtains, drapes, hangings and other decorative material shall be of flame retardant material or treated with an approved fire retardant chemical by a licensed State Fire Marshal applicator. M. ! Provide exit lights over or near all required exits. 0 8® City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 1992 n. Provide emergency lighting in all public areas and at or near all required exits. o. Provide panic hardware on all required exit doors. P. All roof covering material shall have a Class "B rating or better, treated in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. Standard 32.7. q. All roof covering materials applied as exterior wall covering shall have a fire rating of class "B", treated in accordance with UBC Standard 32.7, as per Ordinance 1744 of the City of Petaluma. 6 This use permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review at any time due to complaints regarding lack of compliance with conditions of approval, traffic congestion, noise generation, or other adverse operating characteristics. At such time, the Commission may revoke the use permit or add /modify conditions of approval. III. HAK CHIN CHOE, AUDIO WHOLESALE, 210 EDITH STREET, AP NO. 007 -061- 30, FILE NO. CUP92002(hg). 1. Consideration of Initial Study. 2. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a 1,800+ square foot car stereo sales and installation shop within a C -N zone. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Staff report was presented by Pamela Tuft. Ben Goldman Frank Howard Allen Real Estate, 10 Enterprise Drive, Rohnert Park, representing applicant - Mr. Choe agrees to all conditions; tenant upstairs presents no objections. Commissioner Nelson - where will cars park when work is being installed? Director Tuft - up to six vehicles can be parked inside for installations; building has roll -up doors. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to approve a mitigated negative declaration, based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Absent Findings (for Mitigated Negative Declaration) On the basis of the initial study and any comments received there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project with the mitigations listed per conditions 1 and 2 will have a significant impact on the environment. 10 ... t.xi' S ' '� -.; e.imei✓a.tezrz:ffl.�l:i^^..y.�. ._n +n -. .rnr.. -. . rr+ r... �r-.... �.... P.« M....,.......«_....._._._........ i»......-....-.-.—.- �.-. .:...............,...i.._._:_r. City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 1992 81 2. An initial study has been conducted by this lead agency, which has evaluated the potential for this project to cause an effect -- either individually or cumulatively - -on wildlife resources. For this purpose, wildlife is defined as "all wild animals birds plants, fish, amphibians; and related ecological communities including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability 3..- =. There is naevidence that the proposed project would have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources. A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to approve the conditional use permit for a stereo sales and installation shop at 210 Edith Street, based on the findings and subject to the following conditions: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Absent Findings (for Use Permit) 1. The proposed car stereo sales and installation shop, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed car stereo sales and installation shop, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan. 3. The proposed car stereo sales and installation shop, as conditionally approved, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Site Specific Conditions To mitigate potentially objectionable noise levels generated from this use hours of operation for the car stereo retail sales shop shall be limited to times between 9:00 a.m. 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Installation service hours shall be limited to times between 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. 2. To mitigate potentially objectionable noise levels generated from this use, all business activities (sound system demonstrations, installation and service) shall be conducted inside the building. 3. No outdoor storage of materials and /or equipment shall be permitted. 4. Low pitch awnings shall be installed over the roll -up door and front entry to provide visual relief to the buil'ding's facade and cover before commencement of use, subject to staff review and approval. 5. A section of the concrete surface at the back of the curb between the roll -up door and the front entry shall be removed and a minimum 15 gallon size tree installed, subject to staff review and approval prior to commencement of use. 11 82 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 1992 6. The requested street tree per condition #4 shall be maintained in good growing condition. Such maintenance shall include, where appropriate-, pruning, weeding, cleaning of debris and trash, fertilizing and regular watering. 7. Any outdoor advertising signs shall be submitted for review and approval of the Planning Department. All signs must conform to the Zoning :Ordinance and be compatible. with the building and surroundings, subject to staff review and approval. Sign permits must be obtained through the Building Division. 8. All trash containers shall be stored inside the building and only be brought out to the curb the evening before or the day of waist disposal pick -up. 9. This use permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review at any time due to complaints regarding lack of compliance with conditions of approval, traffic congestion, noise generation, or other adverse operating characteristics. At such time, the Commission may revoke the use permit or add /modify conditions of approval. PLANNING MATTERS IV. STENABAUGH, 314 7TH STREET, AP NO. 008 - 291 -09, FILE NO. WRK9- 10380kt /pt). 1. Update on appeal of administrative determination regarding possible violation of local performance standards. Staff has not heard from PG &E; still trying to find the octave band analyzer; will report back to Commission with findings. V. ACCESSORY DWELLING WORKSHOP ft /pt). 1. Information item: Staff update on the impact of accessory dwellings on the McNear Park Neighborhood. Bonne Gaebler gave short staff report that highlighted the following: Planning and Housing staff completed an. inventory of second units in the designated neighborhood. Building permit records were used to enumerate the legal units and a "windshield survey' was conducted to estimate the number of possible illegal second units. Of the 127 total lots in the surveyed neighborhood,. 2 have legal second units. Using indications such as second entrances, plumbing vents and /or antennas out of garage roofs, and the like, staff has estimated there are 10 possible illegal units in the outlined neighborhood or adjacent streets. Conducted an informal parking analysis of the neighborhood at nights and on the weekends. Staff observations: 12 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes of February 11, 1992 There are certain neighborhood characteristics, narrow streets and smaller than usual lot size, which add to the perception of congestion. McNear Park attracts people from outside the neighborhood, who park on the street. Because it is an older neighborhood, many families now have teenagers who drive; extra cars are parked in the street. The Boys and Girls Club brings extra cars into the area. (D Discussed the issue of second units informally with residents of the CO neighborhood. There is little knowledge of existing second units nor CO perception that they are the cause of congestion. Staff's conclusion from this initial, informal look at the issue of second units in the McNear neighborhood is that they are not a significant factor in the congestion problem. There are two impending_ events which will have a positive impact on the neighborhood parking problems: The Boys and Girls' Club new building will move much of their traffic across town. The intensity of use of the ball field at McNear Park will be reduced by the development of the athletic fields near the Petaluma airport. Ai additional factor is that second units do provide an additional market - provided affordable housing supply. Encouraging them whenever possible fills the Council's housing goals. Bonne also noted that. staff had received very few complaints on second units. ADJOURNMENT 9:10 PM min0211 % pcom16 relwl 13