HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/09/1985257
Not Official Until Approved
By The Planning Commission
MINUTES
Petaluma Planning Commission April 9, 1985
Regular Meeting 7:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers Petaluma, California
PRESENT: Commissioners Head, 'Hilligoss, Libarle, Sobel, Tencer
ABSENT: Commissioners Read, Serpilio
0
I q STAFF:: Warren Salmons, Planning Director
C) Pamela Tuft, Principal Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the March 26 meeting were
approved as written.
CORRESPONDENCE Warren Salmons distributed a letter regarding
Commission actions -. Commissioner Hilligoss advised that
she had received an ordinance that would pertain to a
later meeting.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT Warren Salmons advised Commissioners that he
would be requesting budget needs from the Planning
Commission: He reminded Commissioners of the joint
Planning Commission/ Council meeting on April 16.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORT None.
NOTE: Strike -Out Type ( - - - -) = Deletion
Underline Type ( ) Addition
PUBLIC HEARINGS
I. FISCHER TRUCKING, 983 TRANSPORT WAY, AP No. 007 - 503 -05 (File
2.337) , Continued.
- 1. Consideration of EIQ.
2. Consideration of a variance to permit reduced side yard setbacks.
The public hearing was opened (continued from the March 26 meeting) .
f
SPEAKERS: Mr. Richard Lieb - Lieb and Quaresma, Applicant
,representative.
The public hearing was closed.
1
258
A - motion was made by Commissioner Head and seconded by Commissioner
Libarle to recommend to the City Council issuance of a negative declaration
for " tthis project.
AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Read, Serpilio)
Fir clings for EIQ
M a. The variance does not, have the potential to degrade,, the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
u.. wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
4 .:• self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
:r+ community, .reduce the number or restrict he range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important .examples of the
` major periods of California history or prehistory.
of b . The variance does not have the potential- to achieve , short -term,
z;
to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals,
c. The variance, as conditionally approved, does not have impacts
which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
d. The project, as conditionally approved, does not ; .have.
environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse , effects
on human beings either directly or indirectly.
A motion was made by Commissioner Sobel and seconded by Commissioner
Libarle to . recommend approval of the elimination of one side yard setback
and- use of a front facing loading door subject to the amended findings and
conditions listed in the the staff report.
AYES: 4 NOES: 1 (Head *). .ABSENT: 2 (Read, Serpilio)
Commissioner Head voted no because he felt that Section 26.M3.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance was contrary to the findings.
Findings
1. The narrowness of. the subject property and abutting properties is a
peculiar - and unusual condition inherent in the project site sufficient to
cause a hardship. Lack of side yard reduction- is a condition not
common to all or most of the properties in the immediate area.
2. The narrowness of the property is peculiar to this site and not created
by any :act of the owner.
3. This variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same
subdivision.,- and that 4this variance would not constitute a special
privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by. his .neighbors.
4. The authorizing' of this variance as conditioned will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially
impair the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or the - public interest.
2
C III
259
Conditions
-1- - - - modified- -to• pace -f ront
axiom-rear - loading -idoxn s - clvse--to -- the - Tier ifr- propertq- Sine- -sa- -tha•t -the
wider tnrrring rrranevf- fang- trnzlcs� ray- be- more-�asiiyr- accomrn� dated
bet we�rr -the - rear -�acli ng dvor Ord - s irle -p a r d- clri rerora�r .
2. Vehicles may not park or- batkl mp in the street or block the sidewalk
during loading or unloading activities.
(3) 3. The project is subject to SPARC review.
00
C, II. MINI- MARKET GROCERY STORE AND DELICATESSEN, JOHN
c MILLIKEN, ' 715 • PETALUMA. BOULEVARD NORTH. AP No. 006 - 092 -16
AND 17 (File 1.449), Continued.
1. Consideration of EIQ. -
2. Consideration 'of a Use Permit.
The public hearing was opened (continued from the December. 11, 1984
meeting,)
SPEAKERS: Phyllis Powell - West Street, Concerns . re: increased traffic
on West Street.
John Milliken - - applicant.
Ed Barone - 31 Cherry St. , general opposition to .project;
introduced approximately 18 people who were opposed to
the project.
Linda Barone - 31 Cherry St., opposed to project because
of traffic generation.
Ron Hall - 519 Cherry St., opposed to project because of
increased traffic.
Rink Klarkowski - 325 Cherry St., concerns - re: traffic
generation.
Pierre ,Mireman - 210 Cherry St., concerns re: traffic on
hill of Cherry St.
Nancy Wetherow - 112 West St., does not -feel market is
necessary; concerns re: traffic„ liquor sales.
Charles Doriet - (speaking for Robert Nesbitt, 18 Cherry
St.) concerns regarding flooding,. street widening.
Bruce Blim - Co- applicant with John Milliken.
Francis Azivedo - 14 Cherry Street - concerns re:
unloading of trucks, standing water on Cherry Street.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Sobel and seconded by Commissioner
Libarle ! Ito deny a negative declaration for this project per the discussed
findings.
.'a
N
260
U
t
AYES: 3 NOES: 1.'. (Head) ABSENT: 2 (Read, Serpilio)
ABSTAIN: 1 (Tencer;- not at original hearing)
FINDINGS:
1. Project would generate a substantial increase in traffic movements in
the area.
2. Proposed site layout pro inadequate truck loading and unloading
maneuvering area.
3. Proposed project would generate increased noise.
4. Proposed project would. increase and adversely impact turning
movements onto and from Petaluma Blvd N.
5. The proposed 24 -hour ' operation of the market would result in adverse .
impact to the existing , quality of life for residents in the area.
6. Proposed project has 'the potential to create a nuisance and be
detrimental to the health and welfare of those' living in the
neighborhood:
A motion was made by Commissioner .Sobel and seconded by Commissioner
Libarle to deny the. use permit.
AYES: 3 NOES: 1 (Head *) ABSENT: 2 (Read, Serpilio)
ABSTAIN: 1, (Tencer;.. was not present at original hearing)
Finding:
1. The proposed project, would constitute a nuisance and be detrimental to
the public welfare of the community and more particularly of those
residents ' in the project neighborhood due to the adverse impacts as
set forth in the findings for the. .denial of a Negative Declaration-.
;pLL�
III. PARK PLACE MEDICAL CEN'TER., QANTAS DEVELOPMENT MCDOWELL
BLVD. AND PROFESSIONAL DRIVE, AP No. 149-30-01 and 07.
1. Consideration of a Tentative Map.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS: Jerry Swanda. - Qantas -representative.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Head and seconded by Commissioner
Lbarle: to recommend to .the. City Council approval of the- Tentative Map per
the findings and conditions :listed in the staff report.
n
4
AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Read, Serpilio)
FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE MAP
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 this type of conversion.
1f
4. The proposed map, subject to the following conditions, complies with
the requirements of. Petaluma Municipal Code Chapter 20.16 and the
Subdivision Map Act.
CONDITIONS FOR TENTATIVE MAP
1. - The project shall comply with requirements of the. Engineer, prior
to , filing of . the final map (refer to attached letter) .
2. The project shall comply with all requirements as set forth by the
Chief Building Inspector, subsequent to the completion of an on -site
inspection to determine compliance of existing shell of structure with
applicable codes (cost, if any, to be borne by the applicant) , prior to
approval of the final map.
3. Improvements shall comply with the development plan and master
landscape plan -as approved. at time of Park Place Medical Subdivision
(1984).
4. The project will comply with all applicable Building /Fire Code
regulations.
5. CC & R's and Association By -Laws shall be coordinated . with the
approved documents, of the same nature heretofore approved for the
Park Place Medical Center project and shall be subject to review and
approval by City staff prior to approval of the final map.
DISCUSSION ITEM:
C�
IV. LEONARD JAY AND T. DEVELOPMENT, ADJACENT TO CITY LIMITS
PETALUMA BOULEVARD NORTH BETWEEN SKILLMAN AND BAILEY,
AP No. s 48- 061 -23 and 30.
1. Preliminary review of an 18 -lot major subdivision/ County referral.
Staff._ .was. - directed... to. _prepare a statement summarizing Commission's
discussions. _ .:Staff to .return- to. Commission.- at - a . later meeting_. with summary
statement.
261
r
5
262
V. PLANNING MATTER:
Discussion of proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Zoning permits
for temporary uses.
This discussion item was continued to the next available agenda.
GENERAL DISCUSSION:
Budget requirements for Planning Commission needs were discussed briefly.
ADJOURNMENT: 10:45 PM.
Attest:
Warren Salmons, 'Director,
Community Development and Planning _
° s
6