Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/23/19882 3 PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION February 23, 1988 REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, 7 :00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL PETALUMA, CALIF. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bennett, Doyle, Libarle, Parkerson, Read, Tarr COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Sobel STAFF: Warren Salmons, Planning Director Pamela Tuft, Principal Planner Jenny Cavanagh, Planning Technician APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of February 9, 1988 were approved as Written. 1 PUBLIC COMMENT None. COMMISSIONER COMMENT None. COMMISSIONER REPORT None. CORRESPONDENCE Addendum to City Engineer's letter on Kingswood distributed. City's Environmental Review Guidelines, and General Plan goals objectives, summary were handed out. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Shell Oil agenda item has been . withdrawn by applicant. READING OF APPEAL RIGHTS 1 24 OLD BUSINESS PUBLIC -HEARING I. MCCLURE, 26 8TH STREET, PORTION OF AP NO. 008 - 171 -43, (File No's 1.566 and 2.364). 1. Consideration of variance (front yard: setback) . 2. Consideration of a conditional use permit to allow accessory dwelling unit. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: John Coswick - 826 D Street Was denied a use permit in 1980; wants to be given some consideration if he reapplies for an accessory dwelling unit use permit. Dick Lieb Applicant's representative Quoted from Zoning Ordinance section referring to "frontage abutting a street". Stated that neighbors have no objections to setbacks; this is a very unique flag lot. Ernest Lichau - 22 8th Street Has no objections. Bob McClure Applicant answered questions. The public, hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to deny the variance based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER BENNETT - Yes COMMISSIONER DOYLE - Yes COMMISSIONE °R PARKERSON - Yes COMMISSIONER READ - Yes COMMISSIONER S,OBEL - Absent COMMISSIONER T.ARR - Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARLE - No Findings (reference to Zoning Ordinance Sections) 26- 303.1 There are not peculiar and unusual conditions inherent in the property in question sufficient to cause a - hardship. 26- 303 No hardship peculiar to the property which, was not created by any act of the owner exists. 26 -303.3 Such variance is not 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 constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. 2 25 26.303.4 That the authorizing of, such variance may be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and may materially impair the purposes of this ordiriance or the public interest. i A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to grant the conditional use permit to. allow an accessory dwelling subject to the following findings and conditions: COMMISSIONER BENNETT - Yes COMMISSIONER DOYLE - Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON - Yes COMMISSIONER READ - No - neighbor objection and Zoning Ordinance interpretation COMMISSIONER SOBEL - Absent COMMISSIONER TARR - Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARLE Yes co Findings 1. The proposed accessory dwelling use, subject to the conditions which have been attached, will conform to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed accessory dwelling, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent, goals and policies of the Petaluma General Plan. i 3. The accessory dwelling use, as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of - the community. Conditions: 1. The proposed accessory dwelling shall conform with all requirements of the Uniform Building and Fire Codes. 2. The. proposed accessory dwelling shall be relocated to meet fully front, side; and rear setbacks. 3. This use permit shall not become valid unless and until such time as the McClure parcel map is recorded. 4. All requirements of the City Engineer shall be met: a. An erosion control plan will be required per Petaluma Municipal Code. b . Each dwelling will require its own separate sanitary sewer lateral and water service per Petaluma Municipal Code. 5. All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met: a. Building shall be protected by an approved residential sprinkler system throughout, including the attic and garage. 3 26 b. Water supply shall be one inch minimum. 6.. The accessory dwelling and - associated site improvements shall be subject to SPARC review, with special emphasis on the following: a. A fenced private: yard area shall be provided for the accessory unit. b. - The location of the accessory unit as it relates to the privacy of adjoining neighbors. C. The accessory dwelling shall include the following`: horizontal wood siding; multi -paned windows with sills (or simulated sills); a 8:12 slope hipped roof with d_orme_rs; and decorative columns at the entry. 7. Existing trees shall remain,, and shall be protected during construction activities by temporary fencing at drip lines, subject to staff review and approval. 8. Construction and any grading for the accessory dwelling shall be such that any stormwater runoff drains onto 8th Street or into an appropriate storm drain. 9. Construction activities shall comply with all applicable zoning. ordinance and, municipal code performance standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.) . 10. The following fees shall be applicable to this project: storm drainage impact, sewer and water hook =up, dwelling construction, school .facilities. 11 As proposed, separate gas and electric meters shall be provided for the accessory unit. II. SHELL OIL -, 4990 PET.ALUMA BLVD. NORTH, AP NO. 007 - 412 -09, (File No. 1.573). 1. Consideration of EIQ ., 2. Consideration of use permit to allow conversion of existing self - service .gas station to convenience market /gas station. This item was withdrawn by the applicant. III. KINGSWOOD SUBDIVISION, ANDREW ADAMS,, ADJACENT TO 1400 "I" STREET, PORTION OF AP NO'. 019 - 201 -07, (File No. 6 :874) . 1. Consideration of, EIQ,. 2. Consideration of Tentative Map for 9 -lot residential subdivision. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: 4 C 2'7 Steve Buckley - 185 Brown Road Applicant representative - Comments regarding conditions. Tree preser- vation is of concern of applicant - Eucalyptus are not desirable - comments regarding SPARC approval. Andy, Adams - applicant - Wants to build quality subdivision like subdivision next door.. Hillside lots are not a problem - houses will not go above 100 foot elevation; answered questions, proposed sidewalk that would meander as in several other subdivisions. Bob Buell - 625 Jones Lane Concerns regarding drainage - King property has drainage problems now. Dick lieb - 1 Highland Road Area resident who feels Eucalyptus trees should be removed. T_ The public hearing was closed. c A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Read to recommend to the City Council finding for a mitigated negative declaration based on the following findings: i COMMISSIONER BENNETT - Yes COMMISSIONER DOYLE - Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON - Yes COMMISSIONER READ - Yes COMN ISSIONER SOBEL - Absent COMMISSIONER TARR - No COMMISSIONER LIBARLE - 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 jto 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. 3. 'The project, as conditionally approved, does not have impacts which fare individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 4. I The project, as conditionally approved, does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ?either directly or indirectly. 5 28 5. Any impacts related to the potential archaeological sensitivity of the site are mitigated through conditions of approval. 6. The traffic impact of this nine -unit subdivision will be slight relative to the capacity of the existing road network and the impact of the subdivision will be mitigated through conditions of approval. 7. The potential adverse drainage impacts of the project are adequately mitigated through conditions of approval. The remaining action on this project was continued to the meeting_ of March 8 to. allow consideration of the matter by the full Commission. IV. PEP, MOUNTAIN VIEW AND "K" STREET, AP NO. 008 - 313 -14 and 21, (File No's 8.104 and 3.377) 1. Consideration of EIQ . 2. Consideration of General Plan Amendment (with 5'0% density bonus) . 3. Consideration of rezoning to PUD. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Dick Lieb - .Applicant -- PEP representative introduced Novato Ecumenical Housing Representative,, Clark, .Blysdale. Mr. Azevedo':s house `is over the property line - PEP will. Quit Claim Deed the property under his house; answered questions; does not feel more outside area is needed.. Mr. l and Mrs. Dan : Azevedo - 304 Mountain View - concerned that project was too close to his property., Dorothy Conger - Asked where common property line was located (.Dick Lieb suggested that he would have the project Engineer help locate property line) . The public hearing was closed. A motion- was made by Commissioner Parkerson. and seconded by Commissioner Doyle to recommend to the City Council adoption of a mitigated negative declaration based on the following findings:: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COM'MIS COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER Findings BENNETT - Yes DOYLE - Yes PARKERSON - Yes READ - Yes SOBEL - Absent TARR - Yes LIBARLE - Yes 6 29 a. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment"' - substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or i wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drip 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. b. The project does not have the potential to achieve short -term, - to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals. 1 c. The project does not have impacts which, are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. d. The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. 1 e. The development plan, as conditioned, contains adequate measures to mitigate potential adverse effects pertaining to traffic noise and drainage. i A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson to recommend to the City Land; Use Designation Modification following findings: COMMISSIONER BENNETT Yes COMMISSIONER DOYLE. - Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON - Yes COMMISSIONER READ - Yes COM1vlISSIONER SOBEL - Absent COMMISSIONER TARR - Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARLE - Yes Read and seconded by Commissioner Council approval of a General Plan with Density Bonus based on the Findings 1. The proposed amendment and density bonus are deemed to be in the public interest. 2. The proposed General Plan amendment and density bonus are consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected. 3. The potential impacts of the proposed amendment and density bonus have been assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. 4. The proposed amendment and density bonus have been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . 7 30 5. The granting, of the density bonus is given to the benefit of providing affordable housing to senior citizens;; therefore, insurance has been incorporated into the = project to provide that the use on this property shall remain in perpetuity. A motion 'was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Doyle to, recommend, to the City Council rezoning of the project site to Planned Unit Development based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed below: C.OMMISSION:ER BENNETT - Yes COMMISSIONER DOYLE - Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON - Yes COMMISSIONER READ Yes COMMISSIONER SOB'EL - Absent COMMISS'ION'ER TARR - Yes COM'MIS'SIONER LIBARLE - Yes Findings a) Said plan clearly 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. b) P.U.D. District is proposed on property which has a suitable relationship to one (1,) or more thoroughfares (Petaluma. Boulevard South,) and that said thoroughfare is adequate to carry zany additional traffic generated by the development. c) The plan for the proposed development, as conditioned,, presents a unified and organized arrangement 'of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in. .relation to adjacent or nearby properties and that adequate landscaping and /or screening is included if necessary to insure compatibility. d) The natural and scenic qualities of this urban site are protected, with adequate available public and private spaces designate_ d on the Unit Development Plan. e) The development of the subject property, in the. manner proposed by the applicant„ 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 regulation of the City of Petaluma, with the Petaluma General Plan. f) The .development of the subject property, in the manner proposed by the applicant and conditionally approved, shall continue to provide affordable housing for elderly and handicapped persons through conditions of approval requiring restriction on occupancy to meeting specific criteria in perpetuity. Conditions: 8 u f F ir'r'.�'v flu 1. The project sponsor shall execute a binding agreement with the City of ;Petaluma, insuring that the occupancy of twenty units shall be held in perpetuity for persons 62 years of age or older and that a mini of four units to a maximum of 7 shall be held in perpetuity for persons qualifying as handicapped and /or for persons 62 years of age or older. 2. The site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations are subject to ,review and conditional approval by SPARC. These plans, once ;approved by SPARC, shall become the -PUD development plan for the ,project site. SPARC review shall also include: (� a. review of potential to provide street trees on "K" Street in 0 ! conjunction with street improvements both on and off the project site. b. adequacy of handicapped parking spaces to provide access by side- loading ramp vehicles. c C. Fencing, options to be considered by SPARC 3. j SPARC shall closely examine possibilities for increased social environment and outdoor areas for sitting or recreation. 4. i;Mailboxes are subject to approval of the Post Office. i 5. i The project shall meet State noise requirements for residential 9construction to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Inspector. Sound `insulating walls and windows shall be installed on the east side of the `building units which parallel Petaluma Boulevard South to provide protection for interior activities. 6. � A solid wood (tongue in groove) fence shall, be constructed along the least boundary of the project site, to reduc6 noise impacts to residents while enjoying outdoor amenities, subject to • SPARC review and approval. 7. The project sponsor shall comply with all applicable flood mitigation requirements adopted by the City Council, as contained in Municipal 'Code Chapter 17.30 "Storm Drainage Impact Fee". 8. All improvements and grading shall comply with the Sonoma County Water Agency's Design Cri teria. 9. ''Project site grading shall not result in no more than 18" difference in elevation from project site to adjoining lots, subject to staff review and approval. 10. 'All requirements of the City Engineer must be met prior to the issuance of a development permit. 11. 0 All utilities serving the proposed project shall be placed underground, subject to staff review and approval. 12. All conditions of approval associated with the Fredericks Parcel Map must be met prior to the issuance of a development permit, subject to staff review and approval. 0 3`2 13. The project sponsor shall be required to pay school facilities impact fees as determined b "to Petaluma School .District snl3ject - to- -Section �� �8- _ t�" re-- �' eta�etma-- �4tmcipal-- Eocbe- -arrci - �pprrored =- bar- t}ie-- frtt�r :.. Eou -64 . 14. The project sponsor shall - be required' to pay Community Facilities Development, Fees per Municipal Code Section 17.14, unless waived by the City Council. 15. The project sponsor shall be required to pay Dwelling. Construction Fee per Municipal Code Section 17.12, unless waived by the City Council. 16. The loading /unloading spaces served off, "K" Street shall be signed as such to prohibit long term parking, subject to staff review and approval. V. H.OEN, 334 BODEGA AVENUE, AP NO, 006 - 221 -05, (File No's 1.568, 3.374 and 6.873.). - 1,. Consideration of EIQ . 2. Consideration of rezoning to PUD. 3. Consideration of a 3 -lot parcel map. 4. Consideration of a conditional use, permit for a dwelling ,group. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Jeff Pflugrath - 23 Wallace Court - questions regarding environmental impacts, growth concerns, will impact on his view; drainage. Sarto Rocheleau 11.1 `Vallejo St., - applicant representative _ answered quest -ions regarding drainage, view preservation. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Doyle to recommend approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER BENNETT - Yes DOYLE - Yes P:ARKERSON - No READ No SOBEL Absent TARR - Yes LIB'ARLE 2 Yes Findings for Negative Declaration 1. The project as condition_ ally approved does not have the potential to degrade -the quality of the environment, to substantially, reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population 10 33 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 major periods of California history or prehistory. 2. There is no significant vegetation slated for removal as part of this project. 3. The project as conditionally approved does not jeopardize long term environmental goals. 4. The project as conditionally approved does not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. (� 5. The project as conditionally approved does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. 6. Traffic from the project will not have a significant effect on the area because of the small number of new homes proposed and because the two new homes that will enter Bodega. Avenue will do so by way of the signalized intersection at North Webster Street. A motion was made by Commissioner Doyle and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Improvement Standards based on the findings and conditions listed in the staff' report . i COMMISSIONER BENNETT - Yes COMMISSIONER DOYLE - Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSO:N - No, project is premature. COMMISSIONER READ - No COMMISSIONER SOBEL - Absent COMMISSIONER TARR - No, project is premature. COMMISSIONER LIBARLE - Yes NOTE: A split vote constitutes a denial - no further action taken on project. VI. CITY OF PETALUMA, LIBERTY STREET, FORMERLY STREET RIGHT -of -WAY, BETWEEN WEST AND CHERRY STREETS (File No's 1.577, 1.578, 1.579, 1.580, 2.367 and 6.584). I. Consideration of EIQ. 2. Consideration of variances and subdivision ordinance modifications (width /depth and dimensions of flag driveway). 3. Consideration of parcel map (four lots) . 4. Consideration of conditional use permit to allow accessory dwellings (one per lot) . The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: 11 34 Pierre Marimont- - 210_, Cherry Street - Questions. regarding quality of accessory ,dwellings;: use permits will cause low income units to be built; traffic problems; no on- .street parking is available; storm drain cannot handle additional volume. Bob Lewis - 210 West Street - No other lots have accessory units in neighborhood; does not want accessory units on lot; distributed petition against development. Rich Kiarkowski - <325 Cherry Street Problems with drainage;- does not want automatic use permits for accessory dwellings. Carolyn. Lewis - 210 West, - Traffic is already over- loaded in neighborhood; neighborhood is against project. Lance Cerny - 7:32 Keokuk Does not feel lots as proposed are compatible with the neighborhood; drainage problems. Frank .Dunlap - 314 English - Does not agree with plans as proposed. Pam Kiarkowski - 325 Cherry Street Traffic. concerns. Commissioner Read stated that, per Commissioner Sobel's direction, he wished it to be known that he was against granting conditional use permits for this project. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Read and seconded -by Commissioner Parkerson to find for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER Findings BENNETT - Yes DOYLE - Yes PARKERSON - Yes READ - Yes SOBEL - Absent TARR - Yes LIBARLE - Yes 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. 12 35 • 2. The project, as conditionally approved, does not have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long- term,. environmental goals. 3. ;The project, as conditionally approved, does not have impacts which fare 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. 6. 'The project, as conditionally approved, contains adequate mitigation 'measures to reduce potential adverse effects pertaining to stormwater ;drainage and privacy ,for adjoining lots to an acceptable level. i A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Doyle to grant a variance for a lot width of 54' based on the following findings: i COMMISSIONER BENNETT - Yes COMMISSIONER DOYLE - Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON - Yes COMMISSIONER READ Yes COMMISSIONER SOBEL - Absent COMMISSIONER TARR - Yes COMMISSIONER LIBARLE - Yes Findings: 1. That there is a peculiar and unusual condition inherent in the subject 1property, being the double street frontage and extreme lot depth (43 5') , and these conditions are sufficient to cause a hardship. These conditions are not common to all or most of the properties in the immediate area. 2. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. 3. That 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 not enjoyed by neighboring property owners. 4. (That the authorizing of the variance and the subsequent creation of the three lots shall not be of substantial detriment to adjacent ;properties, and will not materially impair the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or the public interest. A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to recommend approval of the subdivision ordinance modification 13 36 for a lot with a "flag "' °access, measuring, 16' X 145 based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER Findings: BEN;N.ETT - Yes D.OYLE - Yes PARKERSON - Yes READ - Yes SOBEL - Absent TARR - Yes LIBARLE - Yes 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting this property (narrow width and excessive depth) . 2. That the modification is necessary for the. preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. 3. That, the granting of the modification will not be detrimental to the public welfare or safety, or injurious to other property in the territory in which said property is situated. A motion was made by Commissioner Read and seconded by Commissioner Doyle to approve the parcel map for three lots subject to the following conditions as amended: COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMIS'SION,ER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER BENNETT - Yes_ DOYLE - Yes PARKERSON - Yes READ - Yes SOBEL Absent TARR - Yes LIB ARLE - Yes Conditions 1. The Parcel Map shall be limited to three lots with the interior flag lot to be accessed by Cherry Street. Specific side of lot to be used for access to be as recommended by City Engineer. 2. All requirements of the City Engineer shall be met prior to -recordation of the Parcel Map. 3. All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met prior to recordation of the Parcel Map. 4. Renovation and /or remodeling of the existing house :shall .be completed, subject to SPARC review and approval, prior to occupancy. This requirement shall be noted as a condition of sale. 5. Proposed development of a single - family dwelling on each of the two vacant lots shall be subject to SPARC review and approval with specific direction to address the need to protect privacy of adjoining 14 r s lots. fl ec -esso - dowell ixrgs , - -if -pro o -- -s}r�l - - sul�jeet- to --6P r 6 re view- sTr& -app ro (-i a fired- bT- -Si'A-RG- f-tide4 iIies }. 6. The following fees shall be applicable to this project: storm drainage impact, park and recreation land improvement, school facilities, in -lieu housing. Consensus of the Commission was not in favor or approving the conditional use permits prior to submission of a specific development proposal. Rather than,!amending the required findings to reflect a. negative motion, the motion was offered as presented in the staff report. N A motion was made by Commissioner Doyle and seconded by Commissioner 0) Bennett to grant conditional use permits based on the findings and subject M to the conditions listed below. 3E COMMISSIONER BENNETT - No co COMM ISSIONER DOYLE - No COMMISSIONER PARKE_RSON - No COMMISSIONER READ - No COMMISSIONER SOBEL - Absent COMMISSIONER TARR - No COMMISSIONER LIBARLE -. Findings 1. The provision for development of accessory dwellings meets the intent of the Petaluma General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 2. The development of accessory dwellings, as conditionally approved, will not be a detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Conditions 1. 'Separate water, gas and electric meters shall be installed for the accessory dwelling (s) . 2. Accessory dwelling shall be subject to SPAR.0 review and approval. 3. The proposed accessory dwellings shall be located *to meet front, side and rear setbacks. NOTE: Motion failed (conditional use permits denied) . ADJdURNMENT 11:10 PM. 3'7 15