Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/22/1985203 Not Official Until Approved By The Planning Commission MINUTES Petaluma Planning Commission Regular Meeting City Council Chambers January 22, 1985 7 :30 p.m. Petaluma, California PRESENT: Commissioners Head, Hilligoss, Libarle, Read, Serpilio, Sobel, Tencer ABSENT: None. STAFF: Warren Salmons, Community: Development and Planning Director Mike Moore, Principal Planner Pamela Tuft, .Principal Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes from the January 8, 1985 meeting were approved with the following correction The NOTE on page 6 regarding Commissioner Serpilio voting to abstain was moved from the 3'M Billboard project to page 7, under the Capri Creek project. CORRESPONDENCE None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Mr. Salmons informed the Commissioners that he would be absent for the February 12 meeting but that Pamela Tuft would be taking his place at the meeting. COMMISSIONERS' REPOR Commissioner Read informed .members that she would be absent for the February 12 meeting. Commissioners Hilligoss and Sobel and Warren Salmons attended a Chamber of Commerce meeting regarding the entrance signs at the north and south ends of town. The sign program has been put on hold for 60 days to receive public input. NOTE: Strike -Out Type ( - - - -) = Deletion Underline Type ( ) = Addition PUBLIC' HEARINGS: I. SOUS'A SUBDIVISION /PUD REZONING AND TENTATIVE MAP, MARVIN WIGHTMAN, VICINITY OF PAULA LANE BETWEEN MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND SCHUMAN LANE (3.329, 6.618) . 1. Recommendation on Environmental Review. 2. Consideration of rezoning from R-1-6,500 and R-1-10,000 to PUD for custom lot single family subdivision. 1 3 . Consideration of Tentative Map. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Mary Wightman - Applicant representative. """�John Anderson - McKay and Somps (applicant) - drainage details. Art Cerini - 1301 Schuman Road - concerns re: cutting of. trees and drainage. Carol Williams - 713 Elm Drive, drainage concerns. Jim. Burckhoff - 717 Elm, concerns re: drainage, existing ,septic, tank. Beverly Proud - 728 'Elm, drainage, does not want trees cut. Jim Brown - 721 Elm - drainage concerns, increased traffic on Magnolia. John Potter - 120 Paula Lane, traffic concerns, safety for children walking to school, no sidewalks. Jeffrey Davis - 791 Paula Lane - concerns re: ,1977 ,EIR, drainage and hydrology. Concerns with height restrictions on new lots, grading-among trees. Mary Wightman - answers questions re: grading and height limitations.. Jean Gilmore - 725 'Paula Lane - concerns re- falling Eucalyptus trees. Art Cerini - 13.01 Schuman Road, unsafe trees. Bob Eckenroad - 741 Elm Drive, concerns re: traffic and drainage. Barbara Lind - 1295 Schuman - concerns re: drainage, road condition. W. Merry - 1297 Magnolia, concerns re: drainage, zoning. Mrs. Brunswick - 1238 Magnolia, flooding and drainage concerns,. Mark Powell - 805 Paula Lane, concerns re: flooding, traffic. Bill McCoy - 748 Paula Lane, drainage concerns, dangerous trees. Joe Billy - 240 Paula. Lane, Christian Church (1160 Schuman) has concerns with flooding at his home and the church, also increased traffic on Paula Lane . The public hearing was closed, A motion was made by Commissioner Head to deny the tentative map. There was no second. A motion was made by Commissioner Tencer and seconded by Commissioner _ Libarle to recommend to the City Council that it direct staff to prepare a notice of determination (EIR) based on the findings in the staff report. AYES: 6 NOES: 1 (Head) 1.. • . The. proposed project is ,sub stantially similar to the proposal which the original EIR was based, 2. The original EIR had determined that the development of the Sousa 2 OR property did . not have any significant impacts on the sit_ a or the surrounding area. 3. Environmental conditions at the site have remained unchanged or are relatively better than when the project was originally evaluated. 4. Conditions of approval of the project mitigate any potential significant environmental impacts that may result from development of the site. A motion was made by Commissioner Libarle and seconded by Commissioner Sobel to recommend to the City Council approval of rezonings of AP No. s 2. That any PUD District is proposed on property which has a suitable relationship to one (1) or more thoroughfares; and that said thoroughfares are adequate to carry any additional traffic generated by the development. 3. That the plan for the proposed development 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. 4.- That the natural and scenic qualities of the site are protected, with adequate available public and private spaces designated ow the Unit Development Plan. 5. That 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 he Petaluma General Plan, and with any applicable Environmental Design Plans adopted by the City. CONDITIONS 1. The project sponsor shall be required to pay low and moderate income housing in -lieu fees of an amount to be determined according to the schedule established by City Council Resolution No. 84 -199 N . C. S. , or make alternative arrangements to meet the low and moderate income housing provision requirements of the Housing Element subject to approval of the City and prior to approval of the Final Map. Q 6- 401 -62, 05 and 06 and AP No. 6- 411 -01 from R71-6,500 and R-1-10,000 respectively, to PUD based on the findings and conditions listed in the staff report as amended. (� AYES: 6 NOE: 1 (Head) Findings 1. 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. 2. That any PUD District is proposed on property which has a suitable relationship to one (1) or more thoroughfares; and that said thoroughfares are adequate to carry any additional traffic generated by the development. 3. That the plan for the proposed development 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. 4.- That the natural and scenic qualities of the site are protected, with adequate available public and private spaces designated ow the Unit Development Plan. 5. That 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 he Petaluma General Plan, and with any applicable Environmental Design Plans adopted by the City. CONDITIONS 1. The project sponsor shall be required to pay low and moderate income housing in -lieu fees of an amount to be determined according to the schedule established by City Council Resolution No. 84 -199 N . C. S. , or make alternative arrangements to meet the low and moderate income housing provision requirements of the Housing Element subject to approval of the City and prior to approval of the Final Map. Q 206 2. The proposed Improvement Standards shall be adopted in- principal as part of the proposed PUD unit development plan; however,' they shall also be subject to the approval of 'SPARC, at which time revisions may be .suggested. A copy of the final approved Improvement Standards, with any required revisions shall then be, submitted to -the. Community Development and Planning Department prior to approval' the' Final Map. 3. The project CC & R's shall be approved by City staff prior to the approval of. the Final Map. 4. Prior to Final Map approval of Phases II & III, the developer shall employ, subject to City approval, a ce horticulturalist or forester- to prepare a comprehensive survey of the Eucalyptus grove to include, but not be limited to, a plan for pruning and removal of trees, and a long -term plan for phasing -in replacement species. The.. plan shall be subject to staff approval, . and become. part of the development standards of the PUD. 5: The CC &R's for those properties in the grove shall be amended prior x . to Final Map approval to include language advising prospective property owners of the nature of the Eucalyptus trees:, the need for regular maintenance and requirements of the "grove plan" regarding removal and replacement of trees. 6. The CC &R's shall be amended prior to Final Map approval to establish regulations by which the Sousa Subdivision Improvement Committee is authorized to require its approval for the removal by a property owner of any existing tree in the, grove not already designated for removal in order to .construct a home on the .lot or by the "grove plan", and to monitor, compliance with the plan developed for the maintenance: and reforestation of the grove. 7. Roof and yard drains to be tied into storm drain system. 8. Stop ':signs • to be installed_ ate Elm / Birch intersection subject to approval Traffic Committee. 'f 9. A. comprehensive storm drainage report shall be parpared by an _ outside consultant to include, but not necessarily be limited to, a verification of the adequp:qy adequacy of the nearby Count facilities the 42" Magnolia Avenue drain line)., the adequacy of the on -site drainage facilities and recommendations to reduce or eliminate the : resppnsib ity of future property owner_ s to. maintain portions of the drainage systems serving individual lots,. Said plan .shall 'be subject to staff review and City Council approval prior tot the approval of the final map. 10. All property owners will be noticed prior to council decision on final map approval. A motion was made by Commissioner Libarl'e and seconded by Commissioner Sobel to recommend tentative : map approval subject to the following findings and the conditions listed in the Engineer's letter. AYES: 6 NOES: 1 (Head) 207 1. The proposed- subdivision, together with provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The proposed subdivision is compatible with • the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in said General Plan. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. The design of the Subdivision and the proposed improvements therefor will not cause substantial environmental damage, and no substantial or avoidable injury will occur to fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the Subdivision and the: type< of improvements will not cause_ serious public health .problems. 7. The design of the Subdivision and the type of improvements proposed will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at. large, for access through or use of property within the proposed' subdivision. 8. The discharge of waste from the proposed- subdivision into the existing community sewer system will not result,- in violation of the existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. f II. DISCUSSION OF POLICY.. ON EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING USES AND EXPANSION OF CONDITIONAL USES. This item was discussed as a part of Item No. III and will be held for further discussion at a subsequent meeting. III. PHOENIX THEATRE, DIVISION ..INTO 'THREE TO FIVE SCREENING ROOMS; KEN FRANKEL; CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND KELLER STREETS AND 145 KELLER STREET (1.451, 1.1.845.).. Continuation of: 1. Consideration of appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision that use permit is required. 2. (If appeal is denied) Consideration of E.I.Q. 3. Consideration of Use Permit. The public hearing is opened. SPEAKERS: Ken Frankel - Applicant (Phoenix Theatre owner) . Jim Webb - 327 Howard Street, concerns re: outdoor lighting. 5 • The public hearing was closed. . A motion was made by Commissioner Head and .seconded by Commissioner Libarle to uphold the appeal, i.e., that 'a• use permit is not required. AYES: 3 ('Head, Libarle, Serpilio) NOES: 4 (Read, Sobel, Tencer, . Hilligoss) Appeal denied. - Use Permit required. A motion was ,made by Commissioner Read and. seconded by Commissioner Libarle to approve a negative declaration based on the. findings, in the staff report. AYES 7 NOES: 0 Findings: 1. The project .conforms to the General .Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, 2. Any significant .impacts will be mitigated by conditions of, approval and ?.. will_ not be detrimental to the surrounding area. ' A motion was made by Commissioner.. Read and ..seconded by. Commissioner Head to grant a use permit . for the proposed subdivision of. .the Phoenix Theatre with the conditions as .listed in the staff report and as amended. AYES: 7 NOES: 0 A. Prior to construction of first three viewing rooms proposed herewith: 1) Sidewalks adjoining the Phoenix 'Theatre and 145 Keller Street shall be repaired as required by the City Engineer as follows:. a. Replacement of four damaged squares of sidewalk' kind. at the northwest corner of the 'building on Washington Street. a . ; .,. b. Replacement of approximately six feet of damaged curb adjacent _! to the theatre entrance on Keller Street. C. Replacement in kind of three damaged squares of sidewalk adjacent to the curb opposite the end of the fire escape on Keller Street. d. Removal of underground fuel tank and replacement of damaged sidewalk in - kind from back of curb to the building in an approximately 20. foot _stretch approximately between the two exits from the theatre on Keller Street. e. Removal of the concrete ramp and repair of the affected sidewalk squares in kind adjacent to the entrance of 145 Keller - -_ Street. _ Note: The pavement around the power pole adjacent to the theatre. on Keller Street is missing. This repair is the responsibility of PG&E. 3 209 .The property owner .is obligated only to notify PG &E in writing of the hazard. 2) Site plan shall be developed including street tree planting along 'frontage on Washington Street and in front of 145 Keller Street as follows: I Planting of five street trees, three in front of the Phoenix Theatre on Washington Street and two in front , of 145 Keller. Trees should be 15 gallon - size, of same species as four existing street trees ;adjacent to "the theatre on Keller Street, or other species approved 6by SPARC. The planting should be similarly treated to the existing ;trees, i.e. with stones in the tree holes.These trees shall be maintained to satisfaction of SPARC. 3), Prior. to the issuance of- a certificate. of occupancy for. the first showing rooms proposed herewith, the_ parking alley, west of the ;theatre shall be graveled and :regraded to :provide,� positive ,, drainage, and be designated and posted "For Employees Only", and "No )Backing". A trash enclosure to City standards shall be installed. 4) The dilapidated features of the building shall be repaired /refurbished, including: 'repairing the torn canvas marquee, and sanding and painting the .southern 'door on Keller Street and the facade at 145 Keller Street. B. Prior to construction of the fourth or fifth viewing rooms proposed herein: 5) Within 6 months of issuance of a building permit for the first phase of this project, a plan for the exterior refurbishing /repainting of all elevations of the Phoenix Theatre and 145 Keller Street shall be produced- by the applicant and approved by. SPARC. This plan shall address at a minimum the following issues and /or problems: ... design/color scheme for all elevations ... the mosaic around the Phoenix entrance which is missing tiles and partly painted over ... fire escape is an eyesore ... the Phoenix exteriors need contrasting detail and colors ... exterior lighting 6); The proposed addition to the west side of the building shall be designed so as to harmonize with the existing theatre building, subject to 'SPARC approval. 7)! ' The parking lot west of the theatre shall be improved and , s�ned "For Employees Only" subject to SPARC approval. If st determines at any time that cars backing from this lot into . Washington St. are creating a roblem and danger, and this is not immediately abated, then use of lot for parking shall be disallowed, Y 210 and lot shall be fenced or landscaped.. Owner of . theatre shall have norms appeal rights of. any staff decision in this regard. IV. ACCESSORY DWELLING, CHARLES EDWIN HANEY, 25 MYRTLE COURT (1.453). 1. Consideration of Use Permit. The public hearing - was opened. SPEAKERS: None. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Head and seconded by Commissioner 1. Libarle to approve a use permit allowing a 620 sq.ft. accessory' dwelling within the existing principal structure at 25 Myrtle Court subject to the conditions in the staff report. -- -. AYES: ? NOES: 0 1. The improvements necessary to create this accessory dwelling are subject to approval by the Chief Building Inspector and Fire Marshal. 2. Any exterior modifications :are subject to SPAC approval. 3. The rear porch shall not b`e improved or structurally enclosed so as to be considered "living area" , •by the definitions of. the Uniform Building Code. V. SPRING MEADOWS UNIT IA TENTATIVE MAP, MCBAIL COMPANY, GARFIELD DRIVE BETWEEN APPALOOSA. DRIVE AND BRISTOL LANE. (6.622) . ,. 1. Consideration of tentative map for an eight lot single family residential subdivision. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Mary Harland - 26 Palomino Court, complaints re: drainage, falling fences.. Don Faraken - 10 Palomino Court - drainage concerns, would like to see a park -built on these eight lots. Dan Knox - 2 Palomino Court, concerns re: fencing:, drainage. Adrian Paracale - 10 Palomino Court, concerns re: drainage, fencing. _Clifford. Phillips - 22 Palomino Court, drainage concerns. The public hearing was closed. I I N . ?I v YZINn A motion was 'made- by Commissioner Read and seconded by Commissioner Serpilio to recommend to the 'City Council approval of a tentative map for Spring Meadows Unit IA subject to the findings and ,conditions in the staff report and as amended. AYES: 7 NOES: 0 Findings: 1. The proposed subdivision., together with provisions for its design and improvement is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in said General Plan. 3. The site is physically suitable for - the type of development proposed. 4. The site is physically. suitable. for .the proposed density of development. 5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements therefore will not cause substantial environmental damage and no substantial or avoidable injury will occur to fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The design of the subdivision and the ' type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems . 7. The design of the subdivision and the „type of improvements proposed will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. 8. The discharge of water from the proposed subdivision into the existing community sewer system will not result in violation of the the existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control. Board. Conditions I . The project sponsor - shall be required to pay low and moderate income housing in -lieu fees of an amount . to be determined according to the .schedule established by City Council Resolution No. 84 -199 N.C.S. , or make alternative arrangements to meet the low and moderate income housing provision required of the housing element subject to approval of the City and prior to approval of the Final Map. 2. The developer shall comply with all conditions of the City Engineer as set forth in the attached letter. 3. The developer shall pay required storm drainage impact fees under Section 17.30 prior to recordation of the final subdivision map. 4. Ain'y - residential - architecture and associated site improvements shall be subject to design review by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. 0 212 5.' Construction of dwelling units shall not occur until after new Municipal - Airport runway becomes functional and air traffic no longer uses the existing Sky Ranch air strip. b. Noise, mitigation shall be incorporated in home construction per the EIR including a. Roof eaves, should extend a minimum of two feet from exterior walls. This helps reduce direct noise impact on window- surfaces from overhead aircraft. b. Bedroom windows should be kept to a minimum size. c. Sliding glass doors should not be used in bedrooms unless noise requirements can be met d. All exterior walls and the ceiling should be adequately insulated. . e. Soundtraps should be included on all ventilation ducts. f. Double pane glass should be used on all windows. _ 7.. The C.C: &R's• shall contain a statement informing owners = that the airport . �i will be located in close proximity 8. Full. side and rear yard fencing- to be installed. If fencing exists, ' it must be repaired to as -new condition:, 9. Drainage to be. provided to - yard and foundation drains to be ry provided and be- subject to- approval: by the C itv Engineer. 10. Drainage at Palomino and Appaloosa shall be investigated by City staff. VI. - L AND ASSOCIATES, INC, dba TRIPLE "S ": TIRES, 527 -E. WASHINGTON STREET, (1.154). 1. Consideration of EIQ. 2. Consideration of Use Permit. The. public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Mr. Werden - applicant. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made. by Commissioner Libarle and seconded by Commissioner Head to continue action on this item to the Planning Commission meeting of February 12, 1985. =- 10 r-. - , . - , ­ ;; - -. S 213 p VII. THE GREAT PETALUMA MILL ADDITION, B STREET AND PETALUMA BLVD., (5.989). 1. Consideration of E1Q. 2. Historic review of phased 8,700 sq. ft, additional. retail space, plus associated site and facade improvements. The public hearing ,was opened. SPEAKERS: Dan Peterson - architect. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Tencer and seconded by Commissioner (, Head to approve a negative declaration per the findings in the staff report. co AYES: 7 NOES 0 FINDINGS FOR THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION: I.. As the project is, at this time, built writh applicable landscaping, drainage system,' parking and structures, it is not expected that an adverse impact will 'be, experienced in the areas cif air pollution, wind or water erosion, absorption rates, plant, animal or wildlife, noise levels, transportation, health, safety- and /or general welfare of those working or living in the neighborhood. 2, impacts concerning soil, stability along the -waterfront, will be addressed through specific mitigation measures incorporated into the project. 3. Tlie proposed work will neither adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics or other features of he landmark, its major interior architectural .features, rior adversely affect the character or historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark and its site. A motion was made by Commissioner Head and seconded by Commissioner Serpilio to approve the proposed partial demolition and phased addition based on the findings and conditions in the (Historical Review) and staff report. AYES: 7 NOES: 0 FINDINGS FOR HISTORIC REVIEW APPROVAL: ii 1. The proposed work will neither adversely affect the exterior architectural characteristics or other features of the landmark and its major, interior architectural features, nor adversely affect the character or historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark and its site. 11 216 . 0 2.. The proposed work * will neither adversely affect ° the exterior architectural characteristics or other features of the property which is the subject of the application, nor adversely affect its - relationship in terms.. of harmony and appropriateness with its surroundings; including neighboring structures, nor adversely affect the character,. or -the historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the district. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. All demolition and construction- shall be reviewed and- approved by- City- Chief Building Inspector and Northwestern- Pacific - Railroad - . as°° 4Ao sensitivity to and compatibility with; existing sewer main and railroad. operations. All improvements shall respect dimensions of the railroad operating corridor. Any sp_ ecific, studies or design to insure. foundation stability deemed necessary Eby the 'thief Building Inspector shall be prepared and submitted for review and''approval. ;.. 2. The applicant shall comply with all applicable flood mitigation requirements adopted by the City Council. ' Refer to attached letter -from Ts, the Sonoma County Water Agency. 3. All requirements as set forth by the Historical >, and. Cultural Preservation Committee will be incorporated into the project. (.See attached report) . , VIII. CITY OF: PETALUIu1A, KELLER STREET PARKING STRUCTURE, KELLER. AND 'WESTERN STREETS, (5.'0003). 1. Consideration of Use Permit. ,. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: - None. The public hearing was closed. r, A motion was made by Commissioner Libarle and seconded by Commissioner Head to approve a use permit for the proposed parking structure .subject to the findings. listed' in the staff report and the conditions recommended by SPARC . FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT 1. The proposed structure and use, subject to the conditions imposed, will conform . to the requirements and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan /EDP. 2. The proposed use will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community under any circumst ces. SPARC (Conditions recommen'd'ed by the Downtown Design Committee) : 12 1_1 The towers shall each be fitted with a flag pole. 2.. Each oculus • facing Western Avenue, Keller Street, and the Golden - Concourse shall be constructed so as to allow the future installation of relief, graphic medallions - therein. 3. ti: A decorative crown moulding capable of casting a downward shadow shall be installed along the top edge of all horizontal parapet walls.- 4.: Decorative brick edges shall be installed in the sidewalks abutting the project site on Keller Street, Western Avenue, and the northerly arcade. 5.., -. Ramps shall be provided from the lower Golden Concourse/ Telephone Alley; to the arcade (Tuttle's.) portion of the concourse. 6. The street tree located directly in front of the prominent (center) archway shall be eliminated. (Conditions recommended by the Planning Department) : 7. At" a minimum, first level parking shall conform to established SPARC .Guidelines for the arrangement and dimensions, of parking and driveway /backup aisles. 8. All street tree wells shall. be fitted with open protective grates as shown on the submitted detail or other decorative design approved by the Director of Planning. 9. Narrow wells planted with clinging vines shall be provided between archways on Keller Street and Western Avenue elevations. (Standard SPARC and additional SPARC requirements) : 10. All trees shall be specimen sized, double staked; all shrubs shall be five gallon size. 11. All plant material shall be served by a City approved automatic underground irrigation system. 12. ' Location and design of exterior lighting fixtures shall _be shown on plans and be subject to approval of the Community Development and Planning Department. Such lighting shall be of a low level type and conform to the City's performance standards. 13. Any downspouts planned shall be shown on the plan and shall be painted to match building trim or shall be designed internally within the structure. 14. Street tree species are subject to staff approval. 15.. Exterior lights shall be. added to enhance the buildings architecture at night, 13 21'7 W • 16 A pedestrian =in'gress on Keller entry shall be placed, if possible, alongside the auto Street. 17;:. ! Higher intensity lights shall be installed near the automobile ingress - to ..paid visibility. C. t 18: - The open archways shall be constructed to accommodate the future' stallation of decorative ironwork grills. 19 Raised curbing and /or walkways shall be installed near the automobile dn and pedestrian arcade, respectively, to protect interior parked ficars and pedestrians from ,traffic flow. With` regard to Condition No. 7, the proposed garage includes parking stalls whi4eh are 'substandard in size per adopted SPARC standards, (i.e. the o osed standard reduces the len th of angled parking stalls from 22 feet"' p r, p g g p g to=. 18 feet and the width of the back -up aisle from 18 feet to 16 feet) . Staff; feared this may result in 'damage to autos located in the most heavily used, portions of the garage, customer frustration and eventual non- use,..or ..._._� z. customer parking across two stalls.. To stripe the entire lot,* according to -. current SPARC Guidelines; however, would reduce the structure's parking' capability by 77 spaces (i.e. from 346 spaces to 269) Since this capacity reduction may defeat the long -term. usefulness of the structure, it was suggested by staff that the upper levels (which may be longer term andtor employee parking.) be striped as proposed but that the lowest level be striped per adopted ,SPARC guidelines,. SPARC directed ;staff to :review' the City's current parking standards and r_ epor-t back to SPARC regarding their adequacy particularly with respect to parking structures, - and any recommendations for change prior to :parking structure completion. ADJOURNMENT: 12:45 AM. I`{'I �" ">, ATTEST: - -- Warren Salmons Director Community Development and Planning 14