HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 94-124 05/16/1994F~esolution No. 94-124 N ~.5.
1 of the City of Petaluma, California
2
3 RESOLUTION SUSTAINING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
4 APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
5 48,600 SQ. FT. DISCOUNT GROCERY STORE (FOOD-4-LESS) AT 896, 926 AND 950
6 LAKEVILLE STREET, APN'S 005-020-43, 005-060-30 AND 33
7
8 WHEREAS, on February 23, 1994, the Petaluma Planning Commission approved an
9 application for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a shopping center (as defined by the
10 Zoning Ordinance) to be occupied by a discount grocery store filed by Michael Hooper, on
11 behalf of Fleming Foods, Inc., and the property owners, Barta Hide Co., Hanson Properties
12 West, Inc., and James L. Turrini, et al; and,
13
14 WHEREAS, timely appeals of the Planning Commission decision were appropriately filed
15 by Joseph Daly and Alden Hennings et al, on behalf of the Coalition Against the Over
16 Development of Lakeville Street, stating objection to the action and findings of the
17 Planning Commission; and,
18
19 WHEREAS, the City Council has held public hearings on April 18, 1994 and Apri125, 1994
20 to consider the appeals and all reports, documentation and testimony submitted on the
21 matter;
22
23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds as follows:
24
25 1. The Planning Commission acted on the Conditional Use Permit request on January
26 11, 1994.
27
28 2. The proposed project will not conform to the requirements and intent of the
29 Petaluma Zoning Ordinance inasmuch as evidence has been presented during
30 public hearings before the City Council that the special nature of the use as
31 proposed (regional discount grocery) makes it unsuitable at this location. This
32 evidence indicates that the proposed use as proposed raises significant concern
33 regarding compliance with the provisions of Section 21-300 of the Zoning
34 Ordinance, General Standards and Considerations Governing Conditional Uses,
35 specifically:
36
37 a. The 4.6 acre site is of inadequate size to accommodate the proposed regional
38 discount grocery use as proposed within a 48,600 sq. ft. building and all
1
~e~. N~.........9.4.-x.2.4... N.cs.
v
related activities including: the storage of pallets and other shipping
materials, recycling materials (cardboard boxes), and shopping carts; parking
for employees and customers; truck access, loading and staging areas; and
on-site pedestrian and vehicle circulation.
b. Screening of outdoor activities including truck staging and loading, storage of
pallets and other shipping materials, processing and storage of recycled
materials (cardboard boxes), and storage of shopping carts have not been
adequately addressed with the proposed plan.
c. Traffic and circulation concerns exist with the proposed use in that Lakeville
Street is a vital circulatory route both locally and regionally and that the
project would increase traffic volumes on this roadway.
d. The internal circulation pattern whereby delivery vehicles, customer's
vehicles and pedestrians share common circulation routes/areas creates
unacceptable potential for conflicts.
e. The proposed parking arrangement fails to create clearly defined safe
pedestrian walkways near the building entrance and within the parking lot.
f. The proposed site plan fails to provide adequate turning radii at driveway
entrances to accommodate delivery vehicles.
g. The proposed site plan fails to provide a delivery lane of adequate width and
configuration to allow sufficient stacking and staging of delivery vehicles.
h. The proposed use would create significant truck traffic. The amount and
timing of such traffic is uncoordinated and has the potential to cause
congested conditions.
3. The proposed project will not conform to the requirements and intent, goals, and
policies of the Petaluma General Plan, specifically: (a) land use decisions shall
take into consideration potential traffic impacts (the project will add traffic. volume
to Lakeville Street); (b) the proposal presents an uninteresting rear elevation to
Lakeville Street in conflict with the Gateway policies.
Reso. 94-124 NCS 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
4. The proposed project will be detrimental to the public welfare of the community
inasmuch as it will create a substantial demand on the Lakeville Street circulation
capacity and will exacerbate traffic conflicts. Furthermore, the on-site circulation
pattern creates pedestrian/delivery-vehicle, pedestrian/customer-vehicle, and
customer-vehicle/delivery-vehicle conflicts.
5. The proposed project will be detrimental to the public welfare of the community
due to its incremental adverse affect on the traffic/circulation conditions of the level
of service experienced at the intersection of Payran Street and Caulfield Lane.
6. Given the regional attraction nature of the proposed project, testimony has been
given indicating that the project will be detrimental to the public welfare of the
community due to its incremental effect on the traffic/circulation conditions at the
U.S. Highway 101/Lakeville Highway ramp intersection.
7. The proposed project will constitute a nuisance due to:
a. The unacceptable conflicts presented by the proposed site plan among
delivery vehicles, customer's vehicles and pedestrians;
b. The inadequate turning radii presented by the proposed site plan at driveway
entrances to accommodate delivery vehicles;
c. The undefined manner in which shipping materials, refuse and recycled
materials, and the storage of shopping carts will be addressed in the
proposed site plan; and
d. The inadequacy of the proposed site plan to provide sufficient delivery lane
width to allow sufficient stacking and staging of delivery vehicles.
8. The proposed project will create significant environmental effects which have not
been adequately mitigated related to traffic/circulation, pedestrian/patron safety,
and aesthetics, specifically:
Reso. 94-124 NCS
3
w
1 a. Traffic/circulation and pedestrian safety:
2 1. Substantial new vehicle trips will be created which will incrementally
3 affect the capacity on Lakeville Street and which will exacerbate
4 conditions at the intersections of Payran Street/Caulfield Lane,
5 Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane, and U.S. Highway 101
6 ramps/Lakeville Street.
7 2. On-site circulation provides for insufficient separation between
8 pedestrian, delivery, and customer traffic.
9 b. Aesthetics:
10 1. The proposal provides insufficient screening of visually offensive
11 loading and storage activities.
12 2. The proposal presents an undetailed, unattractive rear elevation to
13 Lakeville Street traffic.
14
15 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby determines that the request
16 is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant. to
17 Section 15270(a) which exempts from review projects which are disapproved.
18
19 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council, based upon the findings set forth
20 above, and having met the requirements of CEQA, hereby de i .c the application for
~--
21 Conditional Use Permit to authorize construction of a 46,800 sq. ft. regional discount
22 grocery store at 896, 926, and 950 Lakeville Street; and
23
24 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby sustains the joint appeals by
25 Joseph Daly and Alden Hennings, et al, on behalf of the Coalition Against the
26 Overdevelopment of Lakeville Street.
27
28 foodapl/councilll
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Approved as to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a (Regular) (7A14~X(~D1~4[ meeting ~-.°~_'._..,, form
on the ....1.6.th..-......_.. day of .....1\!ley ............................................... 19-~~., by the ;
following vote: ._-•••••1--=--.-=•-'---- -
City Atto ey
AYES: Sobel, Hamilton, Shea, Vice Mayor Read
NOES: Mayor Hilligoss
i
ABSENT: None (N s'' ed 4/4/94) ABSTAIN: Barla _ `
l
`~~~~_
ATTEST.': ----•-•~ --• . ...................................................... ....-._ ~ 4...:.. -. ... ~ ..... ------- - - - -
City Clerk Mayor
c~ to-s~
Council File-°-• ...............................
ue~. N~....9,4-,1.24......... N.cs.
4