Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/14/1986Not Official Until Approved By The Planning Commission MINUTES (Minutes are "Act-ion Minutes" and, represent a summary of full taped records of Planning Commission hearings.) Petaluma ;Planning Commission October 14; 19.86 " Regular Meeting 7: 30, p. m`." City Council Chambers Petaluma;; California PRESENT: 'Commissioners Davis, Head, Hilligoss, Libarle, Parker-son, Read, Tarr ABSENT None. STAFF: Warren Salmons, Planning Director Pamela Tuft, Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter, Associate Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of September 23, 1986 were approved. CORRESPONDENCE Letter regarding Marina EIR. DIRECTOR'S R_ EPORT The City Council General Plan Hearing for October 16 has been cancelled. main Street Program update. COMMISSIONERS' REPORT None. NOTE: Strike -Out Type ( - - - -) = Deletion Underline Type ( ) = Addition CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING T. EAST OF ELY SUBDIVISIONS (SPRINGMEAD.,OW V, SHELTER HILLS VILLAGE, VILLAGE EAST III) GARFIELD DRIVE, AP NO's 13:6- 060 -47, 48; 017 - 060 =21 (Files 11.852, :3.338., 6.664,, 6.662) . 1 Consideration of Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report;. 2. Consideration of reezoning's to PUD (Springnieadow V and Shelter Hills Village) . 3. Consideration of Tentative Maps (Springmeadow V and Shelter Hills Village) . Continued from 9/23/86. (This public hearing was closed, at the meeting of 9/23/86) I. 1 IM The applicant representative, Mike Gallagher (McBail) , expressed concerns with the lot coverage requirement. He feels that the 25% coverage requirement should be removed. A motion was made by Commissioner Davis and seconded by Commissioner Libarlel ito send a recommendation to the Recreation Commission to consider a park to serve these neighborhoods possibly in the urban separator. 1--� AYE: 7 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 A consensus was reached to return to the Planning Commission meeting of October. 28th with a revised staff recommendation. PUBLIC; HEARINGS II. ACE MARCELLUS, 984 BODEGA AVENUE, AP NO. 019- 070 -41 (File 3362). 1. Consideration of EIQ. 2. Consideration of prezoning of 2± acre parcel to R - 20,000. The public hearing was opened. i SPEAKERS: Rose Nolock - property north of project site - concerns regarding density and rental units, roads, drainage. Harry Desheen - Bodega Avenue - Water problems because of Marcellus' development, drainage problems. Tom Nolock - 982 Bodega - Drainage problems, questions regarding road access, sewer lines. Joe Belding - Paula Lane - Concerns regarding drainage problems, sewer problems, flooding. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Head and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to deny the applicant's requested prezoning . AYES: 6 NOES: 1 (Libarle) ABSENT: 0 III. ARROYO PARTNERS, RANCHO ARROYO, 1110 -1130 INDUSTRIAL AVENUE, AP NO. 150 - 020 -09 (File 6.896) . 1.. Consideration of tentative map for 31 industrial condominiums. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Emil Mogel - Mogel Engineering (applicant) - answered questions, described project. The public hearing was closed. �A UJI A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Davis to recommend to the City Council that it approve the tentative map including the elimination of staff Condition No. 3 and the correction to Condition No. 5. AYES: 7 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 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 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 overall condominium site meets the minimum lot size requirement as set forth in the Rancho Arroyo PCD regulations. Conditions 1. All conditions required by the approval of the Parcel Map and SPARC review (files 6.806 and 5.957 respectively) shall be complied with prior to approval of a final map. 2. Conformance to Fire Marshal's requirements as follows: A. Any building or portion of a building used for highpile storage shall conform to Article 81 of the Uniform Fire Code 1979 Edition. B. Provide one fire extinguisher 2A rated ABC dry chemical type for each unit. C. The sprinkler systems shall be owned and maintained by the Owner's Association per Section NFPA 13. 3 - - -- ?ire -- app}it-xrr�- shal�-aFpI7 -fer- -- Rant4� - Arroyo-- PF43- regzrlatirnrs -test a.m�n dtnent -�-p ermit- zr�ation -trf - �vmmercial-- crn7deminnm-- units -. -- -bard K Im • f1 appli�ation- -slr�l�- ire- z�evie�* ecl- anrp�ravcc�prioz�to- rorrsidez�tion -of -a fin _ * 4. CC+ &R's shall be subject to staff review and approval prior to final map approval. 5. Landscape irrigation system shall be reestablished an irrigation +rook -ttp to , the parcel recently separated from the project site (Parcel Map No.; 208) by the developer, per original master plan Landscaping along that separated parcel's street frontage shall be replaced prior to approval of Final Map and maintained, as deemed necessary by staff.' 6. Separation of utilities shall be as required by the Chief Building In's'pector. . IV. DELTA BATTERY COMPANY, NOS. 006 - 091 -29 (File 1.509). 1. Consideration of use permit generator business. The public hearing was opened. I 501 PETALUMA BOULEVARD NORTH, AP to allow establishment of battery and SPEAKERS: Lou Sabella - 509 Petaluma Blvd. North - concerned with possible contamination of soil, concerns with restrooms on corner. The public hearing was not closed. A consensus was reached to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting,; of November 11 to allow the applicant to be present to answer questions. V. CIaTY OF PETALUNIA /MARINA OFFICE PARK ASSOCIATION, (File 11 :853) . 1. Consideration of Draft Environmental Impact Report. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: John Wagstaff - Project EIR consultant - brief overview of EIR. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Head and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to recommend to the City Council that the Marina and Office Park draft Environmental Impact Report be certified and adopted subject to the finding's and conditions found in the staff report with the addition of responses to the CalTrans memorandum and the staff errata sheet. AYES: 7 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 4 El U Findings 1. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Petaluma Marina and Office Park project adequately evaluates the project's impact upon the environment and has been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and in accordance with the Guidelines for Implementation of said ' Act prescribed by the State of California Secretary of Resources and with the Local Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act adopted by the Council of the City of Petaluma; 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information in said Final Environmental Impact Report; and that qualified consultants have prepared the Final Environmental Impact Report; and the City Council has reviewed the environmental documents applicable to the recommended project prior to approving the Marina and Office Park project; 3. The Final Environmental Impact Report adequately describes possible alternatives to the proposed project, as well as all significant irreversible environmental changes. which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented; 4. The Final Environmental Impact Report adequately describes the cumulative and long -term effects of the proposed project which might adversely affect the state of the environment; 5. The Final Environmental Impact Report adequately addresses the growth inducing impacts of the proposed project. 6. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the project includes a thorough review of potentially significant adverse environmental effects and proposes mitigation measures to lessen or eliminate said effects. Said effects, the requisite findings and explanation of the rationale for each finding, pursuant to Section 15091 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines as amended, and the mitigation measures required of the project to substantially lessen or eliminate said effects shall be further reviewed, discussed, and adopted at such time as the project receives development approvals. Said review shall be based on the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report and on information gathered at appropriate public hearings. Conditions 1. Those items on the attached "Errata" sheet shall be revised accordingly. 2. Comments from responsible agencies or interested persons (attached to this report or presented at the public hearing, including, those from Caltrans) and responses thereto shall be included in the EIR. 3. No on -site development may commence prior to necessary zoning and permit authorization. t .. P7-7 4. Certification of this EIR does not preclude the need for future studies or.. environmental review should questions arise during review of development proposals. VI. WI?LLOW CREEK BUSINESS PARK, MCDOWELL BLVD. AT OLD REDWOOD HIGHWAY, AP NO. 007 - 421 -09, 12 and 47- 211 -10, 13. 1. Consideration of one year extension to tentative subdivision map. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Maureen Middlebrook - Sonoma Financial - applicant representative - answers questions. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Head to deny the tentative map extension. AYES: 5 NOES: 2 ( Hilligoss, Libarle) ABSENT: 0 PLANNING MATTER f� VII. CHEVRON USA, 4999 PETALUMA BOULEVARD NORTH, AP NO. 007- 422 -32. 1. Determination of use in floodway zone. A motion was made by Commissioner Libarle and seconded by Commissioner Hilligoss to adopt a Resolution on determination of use within a floodway zone based on the following findings: AYES: � 7 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 Findings f 1. The proposed restrooms are an integral part of the service station operation. 2. Restrooms at service stations proximate to a freeway or highway are public conveniences necessary for their health and safety. i J. The provision of restrooms will not cause adverse traffic or other activities not in character with the service station/ convenience market. 4. Th.e service station /convenience market operation with restrooms will be of the same or more restricted nature as the original use. I 5. The proposed structure and use conforms to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance and General Plan /EDP because iti results in less obstruction and debris in the Floodway area than the original service station. N 6. The proposed use will not under any circumstances constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community. 7. The proposed modifications are categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Environmental review pursuant to California' Environmental Quality Act Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) , 1.5302 (reconstruction) , and 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because of the similarity in use and reduction of building area in a Floodway zone than the original service station. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING VIII. CITY OF PETALUMA ZONING ORDINANCE, MISCELLANEOUS TEXT AMENDMENTS (File 7.114) . 1. Consideration of miscellaneous text amendments. The public hearing was continued from 9/23/86. There were no speakers. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Head to recommend approval of the amendments to Article 17' and to continue the balance of the legislation to the Planning, Commission meeting of October 28, 1986. AYES: 7 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 1. Article 17, Section 17- 202.1 of Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S. should be amended to read: 17 -202.1 Shall hear and recommend to the Planning Commission, as required by this article, permit applications for construction, alteration demolition and remedial work on landmark sites and in historic districts, as provided in Section 17 -500. 2. Section 17 -501 of Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S. should be amended to read: SECTION 17 -500 REVIEW OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS TO CONSTRUCT, ALTER,, OR DEMOLISH DESIGNATED STRUCTURES, OR STRUCTURES IN 17 -501 Permit required: No person shall do any work listed below. to ,a designated landmark site or structur without first obtaining review by the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee and: grant of a permit from the Planning Commission. No person shall do any work listed below within a designated historic district without first obtainingz approval of only the Historic and Cultural 7 79 Preservation Committee pursuant to procedures in Section 26 -400 et al 17 -501.1 Exterior alterations. 17 -501.2 Interior alterations that would affect the exterior of a designated landmark or structure within a designated historic district. 17 -501.3 Construction of any type on a landmark site or within a historic district or of a type which does ---not affects the M exterior appearance of the site or-- irr- ti-re-- district, unless I exempted by the designating ordinance. O 3. Article 17, Sections 504 and 505 of Zoning Ordinance 1072 N.C.S. should be amended to read as follows: G 17 =504 Hearing by Planning Commission: The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the applications for designation of a new district or landmark and for modifications to landmark sites per Section 17 =501 Notice of such hearing is to be given as required for conditional use permits in Section 26 -504 and in writing to recognized historical preservation organizations. 17 =505 Decision- -time limitation: The Historic and cultural Preservation Committee and Planning Commission, if required by this article shall consider any report from recognized historic preservation organizations and in cases affecting commercial property, the affected business community, and shall ascertain whether the proposed work conforms to this article and with the provisions of the , designating ordinance. The Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee shall recommend and the Planning Commission, if required shall approve, suspend, or disapprove the application within one hundred twenty (120) day after the filing of a complete application with the Department of Community Development. 4. Article 17, Section 508, of Zoning Ordinance 1072 N.C.S. should be amended to read as follows: 17 -,508 Showing of hardship in cases of proposed alterations, demolition, or construction: if the applicant presents facts clearly demonstrating to the satisfaction of the 1-listorir- and- fnxlttal Preszrv-atan-- £�tnmitte� - -anr1 - �lamrirrg-- E�crmmissivn appropriate reviewing body that failure to approve his application will work immediate and substantial hardship because of conditions peculiar to the particular structure or other feature involved and not created by an act of the owner, the fommission reviewing body may approve such application even though it does not meet the standards set forth in either the enabling or designating ordinance. In this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not justifiable hardships.