City Council to hear appeal of Cooperage building use denial
On Wednesday, July 17, 2024 the Sonoma City Council will hear the appeal of the denial of commercial uses of the Cooperage Building on First Street West by Sonoma’s Planning Commission on May 16, 2024.
The building is owned by Leslie and Mac McQuown, owners of multiple properties including Stone Edge Farm in the west valley. Their application to convert the building to expanded commercial uses – converting the upstairs residential unit to a vacation rental and expanding the lower floor use to include a wine tasting facility – was denied by the commission in May of this year. The renovated property also includes an ADU and swimming pool.
The Cooperage Building, also referred to as the Ice House (it was an ice-producing facility in its past), was renovated and preserved under the terms of the city’s Adaptive Reuse Ordinance (ARO) that is intended to preserve historic buildings by allowing flexibility in their use.
Originally intended to be another residence used by the McQuowns, the building underwent an extensive and very expensive re-build. In response to the owner’s original application under the ARO in 2018, the Planning Commission at that time allowed the ground floor space to be used as a “lifestyle store,” despite the absence of customary parking spaces dedicated to such use. Its use as a vacation rental was specifically prohibited by the commission.
At some point during the renovation project, the McQuowns decided to abandon it as their residence and put the building up for sale for a price in the range of $12 million. The price has been lowered, but the building remains unsold. Any commercial uses granted by the city are connected to the parcel, not the owners, and when sold the buyer can exercise their rights to those commercial uses.
In its denial of the vacation rental and wine tasting application, the current Planning Commission determined that the ARO provisions used to justify and approve the original application no longer apply. The request for additional commercial uses, it found, should have been made attendant to the original application before the building was renovated and stabilized. Now that the building has been preserved, in a unanimous decision, the commission determined the provisions of the ARO do not apply.
The neighborhood in which the building is located is zoned for medium-density housing. Vacation rentals, a use that requires the issuance of a permit, are no longer allowed anywhere within the city limits.
At its hearing in May, a dozen or more neighbors to the building spoke in opposition to the application for expanded commercial use. Their concerns ranged from noise impacts, swimming pool use, absence of sufficient parking, and poor neighborhood compatibility. The applicant’s representatives conceded that the granting of expanded commercial uses is intended to facilitate the sale of the building by increasing its income potential to a future buyer.
In their appeal, the applicants argue that the Planning Commission has improperly interpreted the ARO in its denial of the expanded use, is unjust and inappropriate. Among their contentions they argue that:
- The characterization of the neighborhood is mixed-use not residential.
- The the commission’s interpretation of the ARO is incorrect.
- That the impacts of expanded commercial uses to the newly created Historic Train District are compatible.
- That the application for additional commercial uses does not violate the city’s ARO and should be able to be granted at any time.
The recommendation of city staff is that the City Council should deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission’s decision of May 16, 2024.
All documents related to this matter can be reviewed HERE.
2 thoughts on “City Council to hear appeal of Cooperage building use denial”
Leave a Reply
Seems like a waste of time. The proposed uses being applied for have already been denied. Twice. And the vacation rental usage, as stated above, is prohibited in the city. Just some more ultra-rich people who feel like they’re special and that the rules that apply to all other Sonoma residents somehow don’t apply to them. They should be treated the same as the rest of us. Deny the appeal.
Let these folks do what they want to do. Approve the appeal! Allow the permits and licenses. Just some elitist government and local nimbys telling this landowner what he can do with his land. Let people do what they want with their land.