Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/22/1990L. 115 i MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION LO 0 REGULAR MEETING May 22, 1990 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. U CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Balshaw, Bennett *, Doyle, Libarle, Parkerson, Read, Tarr STAFF: Warren Salmons, Planning Director Pamela Tuft, Principal Planner Jenny Cavanagh, Assistant Planner Teryl Lister, Assistant Planner * Chairman APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF May 8, 1990 - Minutes were approved. PUBLIC COMMENT: (15 minutes maximum). Jane Hamilton - 110 "G" Street - requested that the Commission initiate an expansion to the Riverfront Warehouse Zoning District area in the vicinity of 2nd Street (item was referred to "staff). DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Self- Storage appeal; Nizibian Subdivision appeal; budget update will be at a,future meeting. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Tarr - inquiry on frequency of stop signs (Liberty Street at Western): CORRESPONDENCE: Colored elevations for Morningside; letter from W. Haake on Item #2. APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read. 1 116 OLD BUSINESS CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 1. RIVER OAKS, BETWEEN PETALUMA BOULEVARD NORTH AND HIGHWAY 101, AP NO.'S 007 - 391 -09, 007- 401-`10, 48-080-13,48-190-09, FILE NO. .3.391, 8.113, 11.878 "(pt). 1. Conclusion of review and consideration of Draft Environmental Impact Report. 2. Consideration of proposed General Plan Amendments (land, use designation and circulation exhibit). 3. Consideration of proposed Rezoning / Pezoning. 4. Consideration of proposed PCD Master Plan Program (Petaluma Outlet Village. 5. Consideration of application for Annexation. The public hearing the Draft EIR. was continued: SPEAKERS - Maxine Durney 198 Ely Road, distributed pictures showing south end of :site (Parcel B of project site). Site has magnificent oak trees along river and Deer Creek, trees are in quality, natural state and- are regenerating; site is "heartland" of Petaluma. David Keller - 1320 "I" Street; Urban Creeks Council member, Draft. EIR fell short of river protection priorities; public ownership of river should be discussed; State Lands determination; `flood issues; cost to public for losses by flooding; liability potential should be addressed in. DEIR;.project assumes construction of Corps downstream project; river flood improvements being done backwards; flooding of parking lot during 10 and, 100 year flows; creek impacts; traffic flow maps are easy to read - same e of exhibits should be used for flooding data; water quality due to parking lot pollutants DEIR is wrong) -there is no current runoff; no direct runoff should be re p ( laced fro parking into (natural m rat d habit tp ran, wetland vernal pools are not being adequately _ g raft document is inadequate for Parcels B &C; river should have at least 100' strip setback to protect river; project as proposed is inadequate; (parking directly adjacent to vernal pool - no re lacement possible; survey of rare plants not done; habitat loss extensive; creeks are vital (hydrological, biologic, etc.); loss of core of Petaluma; Rainier Avenue - no discussion of impacts to. river, therefore; no cumulative discussion; full discussion of ..Rainier EIR should be. included; business and economic issues; fair share of taxpayer's burden should be specified. Alternative sites - Stony 'Point: site can't; be c ompared - erroneous use DEIR; McDowell -'ludicrous to eliminate: Vacaville - parking on local streets and dirt areas - because of lack of, parking. Downtown - future 'vacant Ford dealership - why wasn't this lot considered? Site should be used as grand central park - mature riparian growth, great biological diversity, significant portion should be preserved. Impacts to Petaluma marsh have 'not been addressed; lack of 90+ acres of park on west side when General Plan policies are applied; Petaluma. River Master Plan is not done; no projects should be done until master plan is completed. Martin Fleisher - Attorney representing Willey Creek (factory outlet center proposed on McDowell :Boulevard at Old .Redwood' Highway). Major defects in DEIR; Following comments were re pared by Nolte and. Associates for Willey Creek; - 1) Wetlands (5 1/„2 acres) with Cor p s - jurisdiction - finding of direct impact or loss. At least 2 acres of loss - Corps will requre n individual permit - adds additional requirements to process. Federal Environmental. Assessment if not a full EIS requiring redoing the CEQA process. Project should be coordinated with Corps. 2) Traffic Analysis - Rainier is assuiried -local funding i 4' �Y- 11'7 onl $7 -10M -where is it coming: from? Project is infeasible - LOSE & F (without Rainier) - at certain intersections without mitigation - this' is too serious. Light rail vs. emergency vehicle access use of railroad right -of -way. 3) Floodway Analysis - flood flows are unrealistic; based on projected improvements. 4) Alternate Site Analysis - Alternative on -site uses - DEIR uses more development, not less; no discussion of down- scaled project. 5) Alternative Site Analysis - completely ignored Willey Creek site - acreage is the same - rejected other McDowell site because of size (25 acres), which would accommodate the outlet village project.. Both McDowell sites are environmentally superior. Summary - DEIR is premature, needs substantial revisions; faulty analysis, does not comply with CEQA. � Don Waxman - Eastman Lane, Petaluma General Plan should be changed to parkland - should be "'made into a wilderness park. This site is all there is left for future major park development. EIR process is constrained by CEQA and regulatory procedures: doesn't ask 0 the right questions (e.g. what is the value of 'lost resources, description of Agricultural Q . lands); biological resources are there that aren't discussed in DEIR. U . Q Bill Kortum - 180 Ely Road - You have to change rules to approve this project - don't - thereby denying project. This project will increase traffic; decrease air quality; destroy beautiful entry to Petaluma. Regional. - broader approach; long - distance shopper is a soon to vanish species; minimum 500 shoppers a day, cost of underwriting a commuter; $20M subsidy to ,pay for shoppers to commute to project to shop. Regional constraints - 1987 - Air Quality Standards - 1987 - MTC must prepare plan to improve air quality by 30% - plan to be in place by June, 1990 for reduction. Business Alliance - Economic Forum - position is- no more concrete; can't build ahead of the car with a single driver. MTC night not approve this project (large parking lot). River plan is needed - - conservancy? Sheet metal architecture and palm trees is not Petaluma. Jim Becker - Aarons Furniture - Petaluma Blvd. North Vacaville and Monterey Centers - criteria for factory outlet stores? Two potential developments (400,000 sq.ft.) - factory owned stores (e.g. Vacaville: Bass Shoes vs. other store with multiple brands); percent of factory stores required should be identified and limited to manufacturer direct sales. 400,000 sqft. exceeds existing downtown area - can they really attract 70% occupancy by "factory outlet ". Must be enforced for 10 -20 years. Petaluma Merchant Commission welcomes participation - the proponent should work with local merchants to stimulate local economy. Bob Martin - 171 Payran - inconsiderate location - incompatible with surrounding areas. - Page .133 (DEIR) increase in over 50% traffic on Payran - sounds like gridlock (slow - moving platoons); project extracting quality of life. Flooding impacts - Payran Reach has 5- year storm, capacity. Adverse impact to emergency services. Connie Peabody - Friends of Nature Club - McNear School - took trip to site (Railroad Meadow) oaks are regenerating; birds, rabbits, fox .sited. Need riverfront park to replace Schollenberger Park; place for.people to walk and bike. Bruce Ammon - Petaluma Blvd. South - General Plan inconsistency -' Policy 2 - Industrial land for commercial uses. Traffic - LOS (Loss of Service) C - is adversely affected at several intersections. Melissa De' lacourt - (approx. 10 years old) 70 Raymond Heights - field trip near Lucky - found..,garbage (shopping cart and tire); picked up garbage; trees and wonderful things were really pretty. 3 its Jane Hamilton - 110 G.,Street - seconded D. Keller's comments; project is in the wrong place; not a fair deal for City; negative impacts to traffic and wetlands. The public hearing for the Draft EIR .portion of this project was closed. This item was continued to a Special: Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 7:00 PM, Tuesday, Jime5th. NEW BUSINESS: II. WALTER.HAAKE,..FOUNDRY WHMF,.PORTION OF AP NO.008= 194 -31, ac). 1. Consideration of appeal of administrative decision to deny building addition: DISCUSSION: Commissioner Balshaw This project , shou'ld not be compared. with new developments; river access: made available through this project. Walter Haake - - Applicant - described this smaller project; General Plan policies are being met. Commissioner Parkerson Feels this project is a good one. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Libarle to uphold the appeal, thereby approving a minor square foot addition, to a previously - approved (as opposed to the currently ,approved) building at the Foundry Wharf. The app was upheld' with, the stipulation that a view corridor through the building be maintained as depicted on model presented to the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER BALSHAW:Yes COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON Yes COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yes CHAIRMAN BENNETT:Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARLE:Yes COMMISSIONER TARRNo PUBLIC HEARINGS. III. DOLLAR -A -DAY STORAGE, 250 256 PETALUMA BLVD. NORTH, AP NO.'s 006 284 -13 AND 16, FILE NO'. 1.672(ic). 1. Consideration of EIO. 2. Consideration of conditional use permit to allow 600 unit self - storage facility within existing building. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Anthony Kinnear Applicant - described project; wants to open storage, business this summer; will install an elevator;, no objections to original conditions. 4 119 Edward Goliti 8 Pleasant View, Novato, owner of building - stated his property abuts the river; when river was realigned, a 40 foot easement from the edge of the property line inward, was dedicated to the City and is shown on his title policy. The public hearing was closed. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Read - asked for clarification of river access /easement, allowable signage, and conditions of approval (Condition #2). Commissioner Balshaw - comments, regarding new or redevelopment and river frontage; CD felt there ' is was a justification for apppropriate signage along the river; questioned why Condition #3 was deleted.(public easement). 0') Commissioner Tarr -- no elevator in building - will applicant need all loading from the river Q side and nothing from the Boulevard? Commissioner Balshaw - unclear on park area - is it basically just sod, trees and bench? C) Has applicant talked with the City Engineer about roadway pavement. Is this a public street? Would not expect applicant to be held to an agreement greater than we are working to provide on Water Street. Commissioner Bennett - Water Street is a private street which is really called Poultry Street. . Commissioner Doyle - feels what she has been hearing is not the project before her; body of report - has many people participating in its review, including . SPARC - confused as to why SPARC review is no longer required - is it just to speed up the process? . Why Administrative SPARC? Landscaping not a critical part of the conditions; not very descriptive; what is it going to be? Commissioner Tarr —what are Fire Marshal comments /requirements? Tony Kinnear - plans to sprinkler and earthquake the building. A motion. was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Libarle to direct staff to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER BALSHAW:Yes COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yes CHAIRMAN BENNETT:Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARI:E:Yes COMMISSIONER TARR:Yes Findings 1. The project, as conditionally approved, does not have the potential to degrade the .quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal . community, reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the= number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 2. The_project, as conditionally approved, does not have the potential to achieve short- term to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals. 5 120 3. The project, as conditionally. approved, does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 4. The project, as conditionally approved, does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. . 5. The project is consistent with and further promotes the objectives, 'goals, and policies of'the General Plan. A motion was made by Commissioner Pakerson and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to approve a. use 'permit fora self- storage_ facility and a caretaker residence 'based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed below: COMMISSIONER BALSHAW:Yes COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER,PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER DOYLE- Yes CHAIRMAN BENNETT :Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARLE :Yes COMMISSIONER TARR:Yes Findings 1. The -proposed use, subject to the conditions of approval, conforms to the intent and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. 2. This,.projeq will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to , the public welfare of the community due to the mitigation measures incorporated in the conditions of approval. Conditions 1. Prior to commencement of any improvements, this project shall be subject to Administrative. SPARC review and approval; -- 4-h &-- 44}st ©rie --- aAd - -c r- P-te a �ation� e- +H& -C—P —C ncl in consultation with review by the: Main Street Committee, appF©va' including but not limited to the following: a. Specific architectural plans for building remodeling and for new.buildings (to include floor plan). b. Design of parking, circulation and access. C. Landscaping, including compatibility with the river environment and location of existing mature vegetation. ---------- : ------- the+ pfvemeRts:o- riveF- €F©atage- (rivet wialk, -bcyc -le -path t oek- e. Signs, fencing, exterior lighting. L Screening of rooftop, mechanical equipment. g. Refuse - disposal. h. Reserved parking for the residential (caretaker) use. 2. Plans submitted for 14&CFC Administrative SPARC review shall nclu_ de exact location of - Floodway line, railroad easement, - and public access easement (previously granted to State Lands). Any development within the FFloodway may require. a separate use permit - to Zoning Ordinance Article 16. The dock and the "gas tank" building. shown on plans are not included in this .approval. All development in the vicinity of the river shall be subject to approval by the Army I T 121 Corps of Engineers, State Lands Commission, and the State Department of Fish and Game, as applicable. 3. Prior to issuance of a. developme*t peFFF4 Certificate of Occupancy, an irrevocable offer of dedication for easement purposes shall be reviewed and approved by City staff. The easement shall meet the following requirements, subject to staff approval: a. An open space /pedestrian and river maintenance easement shall be 'provided along the Petaluma River frontage across this site. The easement shall be the area claimed by the State Land Commission or a minimum width of 25 feet, whichever is greater. (D b. The intent of the open space /pedestrian and river maintenance easement is to create a continuous pedestrian easement along the riverfront. Barriers to pedestrian 'circulation shall be removed at such time as the offer of Q dedication is accepted by the City of Petaluma. C. The City will not accept the offer of dedication until either 10 years from City U approval of this use permit or until a substantial public access corridor is Q available for dedication, whichever occurs first. 4. Prior to commencement of self - storage use, the applicant shall pay the City the cost of development of a ten-foot wide paved path along the river for the length of the project site. 4S. A total of 29 parking spaces. shall be provided. This does not include additional parking which will be required for the future dock and the "gas tank" building and assumes a one - bedroom residential unit. 5.6 The following improvements shall be completed prior to commencement of self - storage use, subject to staff approval: A. On -site parking facilities. b. Paved access to Washington Street; access via alley to Petaluma Boulevard including 'one -way traffic" signs. c. Landscaping improvements between the parking. area and the river. d. Building upgrade, excluding rehabilitation of Petaluma Boulevard storefront. e. All outdoor storage shall be removed. 6.7. Merger of parcels shall occur prior to issuance of any development permits. 7.8. As 'proposed by the applicant, r of -i r e-nts-- shewFi- -on- plaf&-{Femodel exterior upgrade of retail portion riv&F-affle s) shall commence no later than 12 months after commencement of self- storage use. 5.9. Proof of authority to construct access improvements must be submitted to City staff prior to commencement of work. 9.10. Due to the provision of parking at less than 35 spaces per acre, any change in use shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director and /or Planning Commission. 48.11. There shall be no open storage of equipment, materials, trash, litter and the like. 4-1.12. This Use Permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review at any time due to complaints regarding potentially detrimental operating characteristics. At VA 122 such time, the Commission may repeal the use permit or add /modify conditions of approval. 4-213. All requirements of the Engineering Department shall be complied with, including: a. The 20' paved private ' access road as shown is acceptable to the City. A mechanism for maintenance of the . private road shall be. provided, subject to approval 'by City staff prior to 'commencement of use. b. Conversion of utilities to underground shall be required in accordance with the 'Mun cipal.Code: C. Developer's engineer existing utilities (sanitary sewer and watermain pressure o e serve the 'in ensi'fied use of this development. X3.14. All requirements of the State Lands Commission shall be complied with, including: a terward of the agreed boundary Any e bebetween proposed et thtate .and Dairymen's Fed' will require. approval & ease­of: perms from the State Lands Commission. b.. Improvements, not including landscaping, within the public access easement area should not interfere with the public's enjoyment of the easement. 14.15. Construction activities shall comply with applicable zoning ordinance and municipal code performance standards (noise, dust; odor, etc:). X5.16. Major Traffic Facilities Improvement Fees: The project. sponsor shall prior to issuance of a building permit, pay a. fee of $50:00 per daily trip end estimated to be generated by said project. Trip generation figure shall. be as determined by the City Engineer. If the City establishes a Major Facilities Traffic Mitigation fee prior to issuance of a building `permit, the fee, for said project shall thereinafter be either $50.00 per trip end of the major facilities traffic mitigation fee, whichever is more. In calculating fees, adjustments may be made based on intensification of use (as opposed to development of a vacant parcel). 17 Project shall conform with all requirements of the Fire Marshal. IV. CHERRY LANE /DELCO, MO R NINGSIDE SUBDIVISION, ELY BLVD. NO. RTH AT ACADIA DRIVE, AP NO. 136- 120 -15, FILE NO.'S 3.408, 6.979(tl). 1. Consideration of amendment to Development Agreement. 2. Consideration of rezone to PUD (Planned 'Unit, District). 3. Consideration of PUD Unit Development"Plan. 4. Consideration of Tentative Subdivision M,ap for 183 unit single- family subdivision. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Doyle Heaton - Applicant (Delco Builders) Only two concerns with staff report - parking should not need to be provided for Junior College; described project; have redesigned lots 90 -93; parking very adequate; described' fencing 'behind six houses backing to park; answered questions. M Tom Hargis - City Engineer - answered questions. Carlos Beiguido - 1722 Capella Court - This developer should not need to provide parking for SRJC students; name of project should be changed to avoid confusion with Morningstar Subdivision. The public hearing was closed. Discussion was continued to the Special Planning Commission Meeting of June 5th, 1990. PLANNING MATTERS VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS. O Q 1. Referred from City Council: U a. Institute an annual General Plan implementation progress report. b. Improve back -on development treatment on artenals. C. Strengthen ordinances to preserve ridgelines. d. Establish zoning for manufactured housing /mobile home development. Items continued meeting of June 12, 1990. ADJOURNMENT: 11:15 PM. min0522 / pcom4 123 E