Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/23/1992N REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: B( co `o Absent: Nelson STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Plannin Jim McCann, Princip; Dede Dolan, Assistar. * Chairman COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 23, 1992 7:00 P.M. PETALUMA, CA tt, Libarle *, Parkerson, Rahman, Tarr, Thompson Director Planner Planner MINUTES OF JUNE 9, 1992 were approved with a correction to page 6. PUBLIC COMMENT: Coral reconsideration of a condition imp - 33 Graylawn); believes condit imposed m error. Carol Williams prior to Use Permit consideration suggesting that boat /trailer be pr boat /trailer to be parked on the sti The Commission agreed to reno at a future meeting. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: '92 agenda item). :ampbell - 33 Gravlawn - requested Commission sed on her project (Use, Permit for Accessory Dwelling )n prohibiting boat /trailer parking in driveway was 52 Graylawn - (wrote letter in response to public notice )r 33 Graylawn) Clarified her position that she was not hibited from parking in driveway - just did not want the above - referenced item and to hear the item again commended Budget Update (to be discussed as last COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Parkerson noted that the Petaluma Museum will be presenting an exhibit on Planning in Petaluma (the last 50 years). CORRESPONDENCE: Letter from Coral Campbell regarding 33 Graylawn; letter from Joe Pizza. "Withdrawing use permit application. for Jet Boat rides. APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read. LEGAL RECOURSE Was noted on the agenda. 1 184 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS I. JET BOAT RIDES, JOE PIZZA, PETALUMA CITY PUBLIC DOCKS, TURNING BASIN, FILE NO. CUP92016(dd). L . Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow use of the public docks for jet boat rides. The applicant has withdrawn this application. II. DODIE COOPER, 54 GRAYLAWN AVENUE, AP NO. 006 - 431 -02, FILE NO. CUP92018 (i kt). 1. Consideration of exemption from CEQA Section 15303. 2. Consideration of a Variance and Conditional Use Permit to allow an existing residential unit to exceed the maximum .floor area standards by 110 sq. ft. and to authorize the unit as an accessory dwelling. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Jim McCann presented the staff report. Dodie Cooper verbally agreed to conditions. The - public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to find that this project is exempt from CEQA and to grant a variance and a conditional use permit to. legalize the use of an existing 750`:sq.ft. building as an accessory dwelling at 54 Graylawn based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed below: COMMISSIONER_ NELSON: Absent COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMANLIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON- Yes COMMISSIONER.TA.RR: Yes Findings for Variance: 1. There are peculiar and unusual ;conditions inherent to the .property in question sufficient to cause a hardship. The structure at 54 Graylawn is classified as "pre- existing legal non-conforming" (thee unit having been built under 1963 Zoning Ordinance guidelines, with a building 'permit and [therefore] in compliance with buildings codes at time of construction) but does not presently conform to the provisions of the - present zoning district: 2 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 2. A hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. The structure pre - exists the current Zoning Ordinance and therefore not in compliance with the current Zoning codes. 3. Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by neighbors, such variance bringing the structure closer to conformity. � 4. The authorizing of such variance shall not be of substantial detriment to adjacent co property, and will, by virtue of bring the property closer to conformance with current Zoning Standards, not materially impair the purposes of this ordinance or the public interest. Findingslfor Conditional Use Permit 1. The existing dwelling, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. 2. The existing dwelling, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan. 3. The existing dwelling will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. 4. This project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Section 15303, Conversion of Small Structures. Conditions 1. All applicable conditions of approval from the 4/14/92 Planning Commission action shall be a part of this approval. 2. Access to the accessory dwelling shall be provided via the existing 20 foot access strip from Graylawn Avenue, until such time as access may be available from Bernice Court. An access easement and joint maintenance agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the parcel map. 3. This Conditional Use Permit and the authorization for an accessory dwelling shall not become effective until such time as a parcel map has been approved thereby creating a separate- parcel containing 12 Bernice Court and 54 Graylawn. 4. Since the structure is existing project not require SPARC.review. III. DOW DERIVMATOLOGICS; GORD DOW, 951 PETALUMA BOULEVARD SOUTH, AP NO. 008-530-03 FILE NO. CUP92019(dd). 1. Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2.1 Consideration. of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Public and Institutional to Thoroughfare Commercial. PreTq 3 186 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 3. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a wholesale warehousing and laboratory and research facility in a Highway Commercial (C -H) zone. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Dede Dolan presented the staff report. Commissioner Tarr - Any conflicts with traffic adjacent to residences? Dede. Dolan - Not at this time. Commissioner Tarr - Is property to be purchased by the applicant? Dede Dolan Yes. Commissioner Thompson - Is Chinese Christian Mission to keep the rear portion of the . site? Dede Dolan - No, the property has been merged into one parcel. Gordon Dow - Applicant - Staff has been helpful, agrees with all mitigations; Allerderm is a distribution and marketing company; Dow Dermatological is a consultant and formulator of skin creams; combination of both companies hires 12 -15 full -time employees; parking exceeds standards /needs at this site. 'Be public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to find for a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the. proposed General Plan amendment and Conditional Use Permit based on the findings and subject to the amended mitigations listed below: COMMISSIONER. NELSON: Absent COMMISSIONER. BENNETT:. Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received there is no substantial evidence that the project, as mitigated, will have a ' significant effect on the environment. 2. An Initial Study has been conducted by this lead agency; which has evaluated the potential for this project to cause - an adverse 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." (Section 111.2, Fish and Game Code). 3. There is no evidence that the proposed project would have any, potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources. 9 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Mitigations 1. The owner shall submit an the - eastern -per r- t)- boH-n( boundary adjacent to the needed for the City's Rive City staff prior to the occul any other use on this site and to the river from Petals ffer of dedication of a 42' publie- access - easement -al ©ng .i} -and -a 25' public access easement along the northern ever for public access in the event that these areas are Access and Enhancement Plan subject to approval by ncy of the building. Any future expansion of this use or tall include provisions for public access along the river na Boulevard South. 2. The parking lot shall, be modified to include a truck loading zone. All truck deliveries and pick -ups shall take place on site. No delivery trucks shall be parked. on Petaluma Boulevard South. The applicant shall make any changes to the driveway and parking lot necessary to provide accesss for truck deliveries subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any tenant improvement building permits or electrical permits and prior to the occupancy of the building. i A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to grant a Conditional Use Permit and to recommend to the City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment to reclassify 951 Petaluma Boulevard South (portion of AP No. 008 - 530 -07) from Public and Institutional to Thoroughfare Commercial based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed below: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Absent COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSOM Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE:. Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Use Permit Findin s: 1. The proposed facility, as conditi the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance 2. The proposed facility, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan. 3. The proposed facility will not constitute a_nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Use Permit Conditions 1. This Conditional Use Per shall be valid only ' if 'the related General Plan Amendment is approved by the City Council. 2. will conform to the requirements and intent of 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 187 5 188 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 time, the Commission may revoke the use permit or add /modify conditions of approval. 3. The owner shall submit an offer of dedication of a 42-- public- access- easernent- a4 the -eater -n- property-boundar=} -a-nd -a 25' public access easement along the northern boundary adjacent to the River of land for public access in the event that these areas are needed for the City's River Access and Enhancement Plan, subject to approval by City Staff prior to the occupancy of the building., Any future expansion of this use or any other use on this site, shall include provisions for public access along the river and to the river from to Petaluma Boulevard South. 4. The parking lot shall be modified to include a truck; loading zone. All truck deliveries and pick -ups shall take place on site. No delivery trucks shall be parked on Petaluma Boulevard South. The applicant shall make any changes to the driveway and parking lot necessary to provide. accesss for truck deliveries subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any tenant improvement building permits or electrical permits and prior to the occupancy of the building. 5. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions of the City Fire Marshal: a. Provide fire extinguishers 2A rated. ABC dry chemical type as required by the Fire Marshal. b. Post address at or near main entry door - minimum two inch letters. C. All compressed gas cylinders in service or in storage shall be adequately secured to prevent falling or being knocked over (Section 74.107a of the 198.8 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code). d. No extension cords. All equipment and appliances shall be direct plug -in. e. Provide metal or flame retardant plastic waste cans. L Provide KNOX box for key control located on building. as required by the Fire Marshal. g. Provide key with tag indicating address and suite number for KNOX box. h. Exiting: exit ways and* exit doors shall conform to 1988 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code. 6. The applicant shall comply with the following condition of the City Building Inspection Division prior to occupancy of the building: a. The new occupancy, must comply with all the requirements indicated in Chapter 5 of the Uniform Building Code for Group "B Occupancy. General Plan Amendment Findings 1. The proposed land use reclassification is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed designation is consistent and compatible with the, land uses of parcels surrounding the project site. R .. _7 City of Petaluma Planning" Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment is deemed to be in the public interest as the reclassification will allow a low intensity "clean" land use to be established at a viable site. 3. The proposed impacts of the land use reclassification have been determined not to bel detrimental to the public health and safety or welfare because impacts resulting from the change in use can be mitigated through the measures identified in the initial study. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment has been processed in accordance with the co applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California CY) Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). IV. WASHINGTON SQUARE EXPANSION, MARK FRIEDMAN, WASHINGTON SQUARE ASSOCIATES, AP NO. 007 - 280 -46, 49, 52, 55, 69 -73; FILE NO. CUP92020(tp). 1. ! Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. , Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of an existing major shopping center. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Jim McCann presented the staff rel Commission Discussion Conce (approved) Firestone building. on tl Allan Tilton City Traffic Engineei aisles need to be reconfigured to 1 landscaping needed to define driv would appreciate general direction Commissioner Rahman - Can lai better than at Gateway Center? Jim McCann - Phasing of parking /] noted that it is not the only approac Commissioner Libarle - Expansioi changes; shouldn't wait for Firestoi upgrade. Commissioner Tarr - Agreed parking /landscaping changes: Keith Sterling -- Washington Squarf parking needs to be..managed; a coi to-give parkingback to the custome Commissioner Rahman - All types c of shoppii � center, Ai orter riders begin to think about this for the futl Richard Aston - Washington Squai for parking needs to be addressed. is regarding traffic impacts after development of s site. - Marginal amount of traffic increase; parking /driving -tter define circulation throughout the parking areas; ig aisles; details are not worked out with developer; t this time; changes could occur in a phased fashion. Iscaping /parking /shopping cart storage be designed ndscaping could be explored; referenced staff Exhibit, but provides minimum standards for the master plan. of Bill's /Safeway should trigger parking /landscaping (or whatever is built) to require landscaping /parking that expansion of Bill's /Safeway should trigger tenant - parking issue needs- to be addressed; existing iprehensive plan from the landlord should. be required f parking occurs in this lot -now - commuters, customers . there don't appear to be problems now, but we should re. tenant - facilities should be updated; lack of control I 7 190 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Ann Waldemar - 1553 Creekside Drive - lives in two -story house behind Safeway; too much noise from rear of Safeway; there should be fences /planting to muffle the sound. Mark Friedman - Applicant /Property Manager - Presented history of project (i.e. Safeway expansion plans); described proposed project; complete exterior remodel is planned (has been presented to SPARC); economic constraints have been placed on this remodel /expansion; concerns regarding several of the Mitigations /Conditions in the staff report (trash enclosures, screening of rooftop equipment, phasing and extent of parking /landscaping improvements); can work with staff to reach a mutually agreeable master plan; fencing behind Safeway may not be as effective to address noise problems as other improvements such as enclosing the area. Commissioner Libarle - Doesn't make sense to allow expansion without improving landscaping /,parking; these improvements should be triggered with any expansion. Mark Friedman - Commission and myself disagree on what is more important to be done first - we have already agreed to plant 20 trees in the parking lot. Pamela Tuft - Described SPARC approved proposed facade remodel. Mark Friedman - Indicated that remodeling will be much more extensive than Pamela Tuft indicated. (all buildings to be painted and receive new facade and roof remodel). Pamela Tuft - Agreed with Mr. Friedman that fencing behind Safeway may not be the best way to muffle noises; parking/landscaping improvements can be tied (phased) to major (Safeway, Bill's) expansions. Commissioner Libarle Would applicant like to continue this item ' to work out more details with staff. Commissioners Parkerson /Libarle (To Mr. Friedman) Do you agree that major parking /landscaping changes need to be made at the same time that store expansions are taking place. Mark Friedman - Yes, I believe I can work with staff to phase expansion with parking /landscaping improvements. Pamela Tuft - Staff will return to Planning Commission's next meeting with diagram for phased.parking improvements. The public hearing. was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the findings and subject to the amended mitigations listed below: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Absent COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER'THOMPSOM. Yes COlvI1VIISSIONER TARR Yes Fines 1 I. On the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received, there is.no substantial evidence that the project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect on the environment.. 2. An Initial Study .has been conducted by this lead agency, which has evaluated the potential for this project to cause an adverse effect - either individually or City of Petaluma Planning, Commission Minutes June 23,4992 i cumulatively - on wildlife n animals, birds, plants, fi: including the habitat upon (Section 711.2, Fish and Ga 3. There is no evidence that tl effect on wildlife resources. Mitigations 1. A' comprehensive site circu . shopping center shall be submitted for SPARC rev constructed space within implemented in phases p Commission its -- entirety - -(� sources. For this purpose, wildlife is defined as "all wild 1, amphibians, and related ecological communities, which the wildlife depends for its continued viability." ne Code). e proposed project would have any potential for adverse tion and landscaping masterplan addressing the 20 acre repared by the applicant. Said masterplan shall be w and approval prior to the occupancy of any newly the shopping center. The masterplan shall be suant to a Phasing Plan approved by the Planning �inss - -a€ tee rtarte-- p€ ia: strlg-- is- �pp�ed-- by-- t€ie-- I?la�g �ncy- � €- r- co�m� cra- l -�paeo- v�rtl�in- the- c -e�te� �lricl� eld- 4 -------------------- sq.- fit: -o-F rtl3i - €ivo- {�-) years - €r ©m the -dat-e .ure to implement the Use Permit. 1 shall constitute a violation of the conditions of 2. Feuer - -lec- aged - along - the= '�a�- pFOpert - line- © € -Jhe - shoppi g -e�nte - site shall -be ua�led - ©F- replaced -- to-- iltxe - ©rse - atentrating-- €eatttes ene3ng Unloading and trash enclosure areas shall be designed and retrofitted with noise attenuating features and. shall be subject to SPARC approval prior to issuance of building permit for the proposed expansion. 3. Prior to appf©val-0€ building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a plan for on -going monitoring of delivery activities to minimize noise impacts to neighboring residents between the hours of 10 PM and 6 AM. i 4. All proposed modifications to building exteriors, parking areas, and walkways shall be subject to review and approval by SPARC. Design of screening for all proposed and existing rooftop equipment and trash storage areas located within the Safeway and Bills Drugs lease areas shall be to SPARC approval. A motion was made by Commissie approve a Conditional Use .fermi including, the proposal for expansic subject the. amended conditions l COMMISSIONER NELSON: Abs COMMISSIONER BENNETT. , Y1 COMMISSIONER RAHMAN Ye COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: CHAIRMAN. LIBARLE:. Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes .er Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to for the existing Washington Square Shopping center . not to exceed 10,000 sq.ft: based on the findings and ted below: Yes es E 01 192 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 Finings 1. The proposed expansion, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed expansion, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan. 3. The proposed expansion will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. Conditions This project shall be subject to SPARC review prior to application for building pernut issuance, with emphasis on the following areas of concern: a. Review of on -,site circulation plans for improved pedestrian and. vehicular movement across the site, channelization controls, site distance and vehicle stacking adequacy at. driveway intersections, appropriate directional signing and striping,. and conformance of aisle and parking, design with City Standards. Plans shall be drawn to scale, with typical. dimensions indicated, and shall accurately reflect existing conditions. b. Review of existing and proposed on -site landscaping in parking and walkway areas for conformance with current SPARC Standards. generally (as reflected on Exhibit AA), appropriate growth, habits and function within the context of the site plan. Species, size, spacing and planting details for all landscape materials shall be provided on professionally prepared plans. C. Review of project architecture for compatibility with previously SPARC- approved design concept for shopping center facade remodel. If this approved .facade remodel is not to be implemented in conjunction with this building expansion,, the project shall return to Planning Commission for reconsideration and possible modification of conditions of approval. d. Review of materials and design of screening enclosures for rooftop equipment and trash storage areas, as well as a proposal for outdoor storage of pallets and other equipment for Safeway and Bill's Drugs. e. Review of fencing proposal, to ensure design compatibility with shopping center architecture,. and incorporation of sound attenuating features. 2. The. proposed. project shall conform to Building Code requirements and Zoning Ordinance: provisions pertaining to , building height, setbacks, and, lot coverage applicable to the- Central Commercial Zoning District. Location of lot lines shall be shown on plans submitted for SPARC review, with building setback. dimensions' noted. 3. Modifications to or elimination of existing parking stalls in the vicinity of the. proposed expansion, as required by the City Traffic. Engineer, shall be reflected on plans submitted for SPARC review. Circulation improvements required by SPARC 10 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 directly associated with the approval of the proposed building expansion shall be installed prior to occupancy of the new additions. 4. Proposed construction phasing for all long term site, landscape and architectural improvements shall be shown on plans submitted at time of SPARC review of this project. Phasing proposal shall be subject to approval of City staff, with all construction to be completed within 5 years of SPARC approval of expansion plans and circulation /landscape rnasterplans. CD 5. The following requirements of the City Engineer shall be met: co co a. Handicapped access ramps to be installed at all curb returns. b.'. Minimum 30' driveway aisle width to be maintained along building frontage. i C.! Existing parking stalls adjacent to proposed areas of construction shall be modified or removed as determined necessary by the City Engineering staff to accommodate, emergency vehicle turning movements and minimum driveway aisle standards. d. A master circulation plan shall be prepared prior to SPARC review of the project, to the satisfaction of City staff, to address the aggregate impacts of existing development the proposed expansion and anticipated future construction within the shopping center. 6. The following requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met: a. Project shall comply with all requirements of the Uniform Building and Fire Codes. 7. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.). 8. At no time shall future business activities exceed Performance Standards specified in ;the Uniform Building Code, Section 22 -301 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, an` the 1987 General Plan. 9. All above - ground meters and transformers shall be shown on plans and screened with landscaping materials subject to approval of the Planning Department. Any combination of earth berms, retaining walls and landscaping may be used to accomplish said screening. 10. Driveway and parking surface areas shall be improved with a City approved surface of asphaltic- concrete or concrete pavement. All parking surface areas shall be bordered with, concrete curbing which is designed to meet at least the minimum specifications of the City Parking Design Standards. 11. Handicapped spaces shall be designed with extra width to accommodate side - loading handicap vehicles at a ratio of one -third of all handicap spaces (minimum of one side - loading accessible), subject to staff review and approval. t 11 193 194 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 12. 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. 13. This use permit will not be in effect until such time as this item has been renoticed indicating change in expansion square footage from 6, 000 to 10, 000. V. CORONA /ELY DEVELOPERS, 'et al, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT, FILE NO. REZ920080m). 1. Consideration of exemption from CEQA per Section 15182. 2. Consideration of amendments to the six Development Agreements within the Corona /Ely Specific Plan Area: a. Cader Farms - Quaker Hill Development b. Glenbrook - McBail Company C. Grey Property - McBail Company d. Kingsmil'l (previously Waterford Oak) - Benjamin- Tuxhorn e. Montage (previously Morningside) - Cherry Lane Partners f. Sonoma Glen (previously Sonoma. Gateway) - Delco Builders. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Jim McCann presented the staff report. Warren Salmons (Assistant City Manager) Answered questions. Commissioner Thompson - How does the development of the school sites affect allocations? Warren Salmons - There is really no direct relationship; Benefit Fee District questions can be answered by David Spilman, City Finance Director. Matt Hudson - Attorney representing developers =Thanked staff and Commission. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to find that the development agreement amendments are . exempt from the requirements of CEQA and to recommend to the City Council' adoption of the proposed Development Agreements as recommended. by staff. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Absent COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes 1 12 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 The proposed amendments include the following: 1., Provide for a change order to the Sonoma Mountain Parkway Special Assessment District No. 21 to provide for Ely Road improvements between Corona Road and the boundary of the Assessment District. This is the most significant. of the proposed amendments and will allow for the timely improvement of Ely Road funded through the Assessment District. 2. Establish the time of payment of traffic mitigation fees for each dwelling unit constructed under the Development Agreements as with Certificate of Occupancy or by a specific date (to be identified), whichever is sooner. This amendment stipulates and, c payments to the City as previol Further, the amendment requires their "proportionate share of $1.5 and penalties collection. - 3.; Extend the life of Ti Architectural Revic Plan area. This proposed amendment will approvals (tentative subdivision development agreement. This prc between statutory time limits of to The Commission should note that established in the original dev (Benjamin- Tuxhorn), Montage Development) projects as they an Company's Greystone (Glenbrook Parkway ,Associates will require agreement (and correspondingly t these latter two continue until Mai 4. Recognize that 49 Management Systen Development Agreem This proposed amendment provide recently awarded. 49 allocations agreement. 5.: r Process for receiving This proposed amendment clarifies clear that the developers are exc Municipal Code pertaining to allotr 6.. Order of utilization (Corona /Ely). fies the timing and amount of traffic mitigation fee agreed. to in the original development agreement. t the developers shall pay on or before July 15, 1994 lion in traffic mitigation fees and provides for interest ative Subdivision Maps and subsequent Site Plan and Committee ( SPARC) approvals within the Specific vide for an extension of the term of discretionary ip and SPARC) to coincide with the term of the ion would .eliminate the conflict which currently exists tive maps and SPARC action. for these larger- projects. extension of tentative map life beyond the 1997 date pment agreement is proposed for the Kingsmill elco Builders) or Cader Farms (Quaker Hill ,pate to complete construction by 1997. The McBail )rth) project and the Sonoma Glen project by Sonoma htional time. It is proposed that the development life of the tentative map and SPARC approval) for 19, 1999. additional allocations under the City's Growth for the Sonoma Glen project will fall under the assurance to Delco Builders (Sonoma Glen) that the 11 be subject to all provisions of the development residential allocations. the language of the development . agreement to make npt from the requirements of Section 17.26 of the of funds available from the Assessment District 21 1 13 196 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 This addition, provides a definition of the order in which funds available from the Assessment District may be dispersed. Five funding priorities are proposed in conjunction with the improvements. - -- _ --- 4in} alement4ienn- o€- a-- bene€rf- a- &ses- sment; - distriet- in44i Cofen -a /49y- S-peeif e Fla-n-af ea: t Ile- e se -to-- amend- t13e -1a� - ag t- r�g�Fding dev er�- gttage - © t { -S�pt� mbeF -M -199 -2} -by - r�eater� o €a BeFle €it;�'�e- �:3istr�e- t- t ©- pr-a�e €ems fi wlhstFt =mss# heored:-- 8f € -�s- opposed- tQ= tlprt�pesed- aendFr�e and3nds tlFa� the• ex�stinb= langxage- a�- ��llo�- is�r� €er�d: --- - - - - -- 3:2:x -- '- 'BeF}e €it- l3iict -- Ei- agFees -o- create ,a= �ene£it-�� District -a�: tke su:� -- tie-- t�e- �ono�ra.== ntai�== g�r�rvay- Asses�en� - 13i�ict- is eiaate4= whi shall- include- a11= 1a-Rds7in- tkie- Cnrana�Ely -Spe,6 s - -P4an Aiwa,, - eaxeept- 4ose- -p&Ftielpal pg- iii --said- as-ses�e�t--di�tFi�t -- --fie r}g neer's - -as se sment-- spFend-- -or�trla -- €off-- t1�-- s<�a�e- A4o�F�tain Pa��ay �4ssess�nt- l3is- t�i�t= axd- appii� -ta- the- snbjee -t ��per- t}es -et the - tip- Q€- dev�lop�nent .-- �'��e- eed�- eo1- lee�ed�y -t13 a�- i- �}= s�rai� -be -paid tQ- the �nein� ntai�n- �aFlc- wad- As��e�- 13i�iet- }�a�ti�ipants aceardixg - - tQ -- the 4'nFtieipa- t3 ©rr-- gcltedt�- , sit-- € ©Ftlr-- in-- �s�l}i�it -- �; i�gnrd�es�- whe�heF- they - eta - ©rte= o €= �h�- pFQpeFty - -at -- tie -tea -Qf repayment:--- �= 1�e- 43e�f3 #-- F�- ee- di�trie� - sltall- ��nrain- in- n €€ect, £ ©F -the saFi�e: le�gl�- o€ tias- t�= �rratn�ity- Q €�iea�ses�ent �listFiet- ids -o� tweat -y-year &,= whieheve-r- is =gFea teF.L' Tl}ose= snbjeez =€ ©.-the Be�e€i��3istFie� will €all - into- tlrFe�- ela�se� ---------- : - - - -- Sonoma- Moantah3-' aFlay- sessnt- DtFit- Ftieipants- tl�e- -laFg� developers -� ----- - - - --b ------ - pee-ific -PlaFr -�: --- --- �3the�- pr�peFties- wli�eh- aFe�ithin -tl�- lei €ie �lar�- lea -bxt die- h- mx�t -� afnexed: The - latter e lassoes- will�ay- their- pFO�rtiQnate�iaFent -€l}e- time- o-f- thei� �e�elapme� Staf� - i� -it}- tie•= pFOCes�- o €- �c�r�ng- �- he- distFie� - aa�- f�hd�= the -- tle�lopeF- s- �oposa� -�o-�e tr�eee�s�- 78: Release upon development of'properties from the terms of the Development .Agreement.. 8.9 Developer's financial participation schedule. These provisions are-intended to clarify the six developer's financial obligations under the development agreement: The developers also propose to add, through - paragraph D on page 2, a reiteration of the number of development units or allocations which, have been made available to the various projects in the Corona /Ely area. This language does not 14 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1992 constitute an amendment and ap Associates, and McBail Company. Council consideration of this reouf Lies only to Sonoma Parkway Company, Cherry Lane Staff will determine the number of allocations prior to t. PLANNING MATTERS VI. CITY OF PETALUMA, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TEXT MODIFICATION. CD 1. ; Discussion of possible amendment to Section 26.509.2 of the Zoning CY Ordinance to extend the term of Conditional Use Permits. DISCUSSION: z Jim McCann presented background of request and options for Commission consideration. Commissioner Bennett - I am not in favor of further extensions due to economic or any other reason; existing amount of time is sufficient; it would be a mistake to change the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Parkerson - Sufficient time now at 24 months (with allowed extension). Commissioner Thompson - Agreed with Commissioner Bennett and Parkerson. I A consensus was reached to recommend that no change be made to the Zoning Ordinance regardingithe term of Conditional Use Permits. I VII. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE COST - CUTTING IDEAS. Pamela Tuft briefly discussed the existing budget situation and offered an opportunity to the Commission to contact planning staff with any ideas to cut costs, increase revenue, etc. i David Spilman - City Finance Director - discussed the current City budget proposal and the State of California budget situation. ADJOURNMENT 10:10 PM minO623 / pcmin -7 197 15