Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/27/198614" I Not Official Until Approved By The Planning Commission MINUTES (Minutes are "Action Minutes" and represent a summary of full taped records of Planning Commission hearings.) Petaluma Planning Commission May 27, 1986 00 Regular Meeting 7:30 p.m. qq City Council Chambers Petaluma, California U PRESENT: Commissioners Head, Hilligoss, Libarle, Read, Serpilio, Tarr, Woolsey Q ABSENT: Commissioner STAFF: Warren Salmons, Planning Director Pamela Tuft, Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter, Associate Planner I APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of 6 May (Special Meeting) were approved with corrections; minutes of 13 May, 1986 were approved as written. CORRESPONDENCE None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT A reminder of the Tuesday, June 3 McNear Hill Technical Rating meeting. COMMISSIONERS' REPORT Commissioner Hilligoss attended the County Regional Planning Seminar. NOTE: Strike -Out Type ( - - - -) = Deletion Underline Type ( ) = Addition PUBLIC HEARINGS I. WENDYS RESTAURANT, EASTBAY EQUITIES, INC., 500 E. WASHINGTON, AP NO. 07- 061 -39, (File No. 1.459A) . 1. tGonsideration of amendment to Conditional Use Permit. The public hearing was opened. i SPEAKERS: Gordon Chong, AIA - Wendys architect - answered questions. 1 L 4 ! Jeff Lyons - Wendys Area Manager - addressed Condition No. 3 - felt call -box should remain where it is. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Head and seconded by Commissioner Woolsey to recommend granting of the use permit amendment based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report as amended. AYES: 7 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 Findings 1. The use and proposed addition, subject to the following conditions, will conform to the intent of the zoning ordinance and policies of the General Plan /EDP. 2. The use and proposed addition, subject to the following conditions, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. r.nnelitinn c 1. Non -glare aluminum and glass shall be utilized in the installation of the solarium subject to SPARC approval. 2. Safety or tempered glass shall be used in the solarium (per the Building Inspection Department) subject to SPARC approval. 3. T-h�- drive- tlrra�gr- X41}- hox"- s�ral� -be- relocated - to-- posikorr�ioser -te tke- pick —ulr- window,-- to- pirovide-- more- stazk�xir- spaces Applicant to utilize signs and pavement marking to allow better circulation at drive -thru_ subject to staff review and approval. (Concerns regarding narking and circulation should be noted to SPARC;). 4. Install shrubbery bordering the "lawn" areas adjacent to the solarium. Landscape plans subject to SPARC approval. 5. All current operating conditions of the existing February 1985 use permit remain in effect. 6. Replace parking space Number 8 with landscaping and place parkin space elsewhere on site subject to SPARC review and approval. II. BENSON AUTO DEALERSHIP COMPLEX - WEST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 101 BETWEEN CORONA ROAD AND OLD REDWOOD HIGHWAY: AP NO. 7- 412 -08 (File No's 7.110 and 8.98) . 1. Consideration of EIQ. 2. Consideration of General Plan Amendment. 2 489 3. Consideration of amendments to Rancho Arroyo Business Park PCD Zoning District Regulations and map. 4. Consideration of amendments to CH and PCD Zones to reflect lot line adjustment. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: .Robert Benson - Applicant - answered questions. The public hearing was closed. 00 I. A Motion was made by Commissioner Head and seconded by Commissioner Libarle to direct staff to prepare a mitigated negative declaration based on the findings listed in the staff report. co Q AYES: 6 NOES: 1 (Tarr) ABSENT: 0 Findings 1. 'Because the site has long been under cultivation, the project does not ; Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, s ubstantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a 'fish or wildlife species to drop below self- sustaining levels, to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict important he range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate examples of periods of California history or prehistory. 2. Preliminary environmental review concerns with possible aesthetic impacts of development of this site adjacent to the freeway will be adequately addressed in standard site plan and architectural review of the project. 3. Traffic and circulation impacts of the project identified in preliminary environmental review have been detailed in a traffic study for this project and the required mitigation measures of that study will be undertaken as required with a fair share of the costs borne by this I roject. i 4. The project as conditionally approved does not have the potential to a chieve short term to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals . 5. Because there are no additional phases of the project, the project does n ot have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. 6. The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human being either directly or 'indirectly. 3 HE 7. The project will be required to meet flood protection standards and to pay flood mitigation fees as required by law. A motion was made by Commissioner Woolsey and seconded by Commissioner Serpilio to recommend to the City Council that it approve an amendment to the General Plan /EDP from Industrial to Service Commercial. AYES: 6 NOES: 1(Tarr) ABSENT: 0 A motion was made by Commissioner Head and seconded by Commissioner Hilligoss to recommend approval of an amendment to the text of the Rancho Arroyo Business Park Zoning District Regulations per the suggested wording in the staff report. AYES: 6 NOES: 1(Tarr) ABSENT: 0 Text Amendment addition: "New car dealerships with appertanent facilities, not including major engine or body repair." A motion was made by Commissioner Serpilio and seconded by Commissioner Head to recommend approval of the amended zoning map per the wording in the staff report. AYES: 6 NOES: 1 (Tarr) ABSENT: 0 - Rezone from "CH with .FPC" to "PCD with FPC" the area lot line adjusted from AP No. 7- 412 -16 to AP No. 7- 412 -08 and, - Rezone from "PCD with FPC" to "CH with FPC" the area lot line adjusted from AP No. 7- 412 -08 to AP No. 7- 412 -16. III. HENRY PACCIORINI, LUCY WEBB REAL ESTATE; 101 PACCIORINI DRIVE, AP NO. 19- 203 -12, (File No's 8.93A, 3.321A, 11.818). 1. Consideration of EIQ . 2. Consideration of General Plan Amendment. 3. Consideration of rezoning to PUD. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Christine Cohen - 195 Ridgeview - Concerns regarding density, lack of privacy and drainage. Jean Patton - 231 Ridgeview - Concerns regarding flooding. Mario Bregante - 207 Ridgeview - Concerns regarding slippage, groundwater; steep slope, drainage. Kathy Owensee - 203 Ridgeview Concerns regarding privacy, drainage, 'flooding, inconsideration by applicant. Gordon Cohen - 195 Ridgeview - Concerns regarding hillside slippage, drainage. Carla McClosky; - 211 Ridgeview - Concerns regarding lack of privacy, lack of sunlight from tall houses. 4 i Sharon Mansfield - 219 Ridgeview - Concerns regarding width of Pacciorini Drive, drainage problems, lack of privacy with current site plan, concerns regarding zoning be raised. Jean Stilson - 199 Ridgeview - Concerns regarding lack of privacy, drainage. Chris Christensen - Christensen Development Corporation - 400 Tesconi Circle, S.R. new property owner - Concerns regarding Rezone Condition No. 1 - does not want to be restricted by building envelopes, concerns regarding 0 condition 15 on rezoning; agreeable that all lots be 0 subject to SPARC approval; feels drainage can be �, improved. Henry Pacciorini - Applicant - 129 Countrywood Court - Answered (, questions regarding tenants, drainage. c Sandy Stornetta - 215 Ridgeview - Concerns regarding lack of privacy. Bob Tierney - 405 Clearview - Concerns regarding lack of privacy, drainage. 'Carla McClosky - 211 Ridgeview - Concerns regarding lack of privacy. 1 The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Head to recommend the issuance of a mitigated negative declaration subject to the findings in the staff report. The above motion died for lack of a second. A motion was made by Commissioner Hilligoss to recommend denial of a following findings: Tarr and seconded by Commissioner negative declaration based on the 1. The proposed rezoning may have the potential to cause significant adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. 2. The proposed rezoning may have the potential to achieve short -term, I o the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals. 3. The project may have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. 4. The project may have adverse effects on the surounding uses and ,development patterns. AYES;: 4 (Hilligoss, Tarr, Woolsey, Read) NOES: 3 (Head, Libarle, Serpilio) A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Hilligoss to recommend denial of the requested General Plan /EDP Land Use Designation amendment. i AYES: 5 (Hilligoss, _Serpilio, Tarr, Woolsey, Read) NOES: 2 (Head, Libarle) (Comm. Head felt that the Commission was out of order) . 491 W A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Serpilio to recommend denial of rezoning to PUD, based on the following findings: AYES: 5 (Hilligoss, Serpilio, Tarr, Woolsey, Read) NOES: 2 (Head, Libarle) a) Said plan does not clearly result 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) The plan for the proposed development may not be appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby properties. c) The natural and scenic qualities of this urban site may not be best protected by this plan. d) The development of the subject property, in the manner proposed by the applicant, may be detrimental to the public welfare, may .not be in the best interests of the City 'and may not be in, keeping with the general intent and spirit of the Zoning Regulation of the City of Petaluma, with the Petaluma General Plan, and with the Environmental Design Plan adopted by the City. In an informational motion, Commissioner Hilligoss made a motion and Commissioner Libarle seconded it, that the Commission went on record as supporting a project at current planned density,, i.e. no more than 9 lots. AYES: 6 NOES: 1 (Head - believes item is out of order) . PLANNING MATTER IV. CITY OF PETALUMA 1. Discussion of Sonoma County Draft Land Use Plan - vicinity of Petaluma. DISCUSSION: The Commission will have comments for staff at the meeting of June 10. ADJOURNMENT 10:25 PM. ATTEST: Warren Salmons, Planning Director M