HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/28/19951
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1.2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
;! 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
`33
34
3',
36
3'1
38
39
40
41
- 42
44
r' 45
46
48
49
50
51
;1
City Of Petaluma
Planning Commission Minutes
REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 28, 1995
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M.
CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
ROLL CALL: Feibusch, Thompson, Torliatt, vonRaesfeld, Wick; Absent: Barlas,
Rahman*
STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
James McCann, Principal Planner
Teryl Phillips, Associate Planner
Hans Grunt, Assistant Planner
* Chairman
MINUTES of November 14, 1995 were approved as submitted.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Western Marine Charter versus City of Petaluma has been
settled - staff will work with Petaluma Queen operators for resolution of outstanding Use
Permit conditions.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None.
CORRESPONDENCE: Two letters regarding Cross Creek; one letter regarding Cleaver
accessory structure.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
OLD BUSINESS
(This item was removed from Consent Agenda)
I. CITY OF PETALUMA, WATER CIP; GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
FINDING.
Commissioner Thompson - This seems related to Lafferty issue, would like this continued
to same meeting to be discussed with Lafferty/Moon General Plan consistency issue.
Commission in agreement.
1
1 This item was removed from Consent Calendar and continued to the Planning Commission
2 meeting of December 12, 1995.
3
4
5 CONTINUED BUSINESS
6 PUBLIC HEARING
7
8 H. CROSS CREEK; ELY ROAD AT CASA GRANDE; AP NO. 017 - 050 -001;
9 (SPC0068tp).
10
11 Proposal for a 225 -unit detached single - family subdivision on 96 acres, and request
12 for comments on the Draft Initial Study. The project includes applications for: 1)
13 annexation of 96 acres; 2) General Plan Amendment to expand the Urban Limit
14 Line eastward to incorporate 46 additional acres; 3) General Plan Amendment to
15 designate 46 acres of annexed property as Urban Separator and redesignate 11.4
16 acres from Urban Separator to Urban Standard; 4) Prezoning of 50 acres to PUD
17 and 48.5 acres to Urban Separator; 5) approval of a Pretentauve Subdivision Map
18 to create 225 detached single - family lots on 47.5 acres and one Urban Separator
19 parcel comprising 48.5 acres.
20
21 Continued from October 24, 1995.
22
23 Jim McCann presented summary of the October 24 meeting and of the proposal.
24
25 Public hearing:
26
27 SPEAKERS :
28
29 Don Weisenfluh - 1092 Wren Drive - Recapped major issues with proposal; 1) moving
30 Urban Limit Line and Urban Separator; 2) prezoning to PUD - highly questionable legal
31 dodge, used to circumvent General Plan requirements of lessening versus
32 reallocation/redistribution of project density, PUD clearly violates clustering (does not
33 preserve open space); 3) opposes annexation of 96 acres - density in County 4.6 units;
34 presented under false premise; several maps received from City have been different;
35 transfer of density questions; no open space between developments; 4) lack of useable
36 open space - not developing required park, preserve meaningful amounts of open space; 5)
37 subdivision uses clustering without preserving open space; clustering is all in one phase
38 and in one area; developer indicated that fence line between developments was enough to
39 satisfy this General Plan requirement; presented slides of open space buffer areas from
40 other developments in Petaluma (all at least 60'); clustered development (page 133 of
41 General Plan) - project is inconsistent; developer needs to work in concert with General
42 Plan, be consistent; General Plan Amendments must be supported by findings of fact listed
43 in General Plan; 5 acres of wetlands will be in jeopardy; many major problems with
44 General Plan consistency; City does not have a standardized procedure for density
45 redistribution for feathering policy; exceptions to rule are now being used as the rule;
46 General Plan needs to be enforced; presented three courses of action and recommendation;
47 don't use standard application for "lessening "; is Corona/Ely a precedent ?; suggested
48 means of meeting all General Plan policies; doubling density doubles fees to City.
49 Commissioner Wick - (utilizing the transitional density overhead), requested Mr.
50 Weisenfluh to show Commission how he feels this does not comply with feathering
51 policy.
�5
:
I Don Weisenfluh - Only 36 acres could be used for this transitional density; there has been
2 no density lessening, just redistribution; how did staff achieve potential densities ?; safety
3 zones dictate densities; density exceeds highest allowable density; no open space has been
4 preserved; no gradual and deliberate lessening of density is proposed.
5 Commissioner Wick - Discussed General Plan Land Use policies.
6 Don Weisenfluh - 127 units total should be allowed; Petaluma is a Charter City - PUD
7 designation allows circumventing the General Plan.
8 Plannin , Director Tuft - Referenced Policy 13, Page 32 General Plan - regarding Urban
9 Separator density transfer policy.
10 Steve Kendall - 1072 Wren Drive - Lives on fence line of project - also a private pilot; no
11 advantage to airport on this annexation; 9 years ago, checked development potential of
`,12 this area in General Plan - density was much less than now proposed; already too much
13 traffic on Wren Drive; City on verge of being cheated out of some property; extra pressure
14 on airport (noise); no lessening of density as approaches Urban Limit Line; annexation
15 would be a disadvantage to City and to Airport.
16 Debra Lance - 1084 Wren Drive - Questions regarding Urban Separator; not an
17 appropriate place for this proposed type of density; does not make sense for Petaluma; not
18 enough �parks on this side of town for the children who live in this area now.
19 Val Hinshaw - 1064 Wren Drive - Not anti - development; Petaluma needs to provide
20 responsible controlled growth; congestion in this area is already bad; character of
21 Petaluma has changed in last 10 years; (Policy 3 regarding low profile development),
'22 General Plan in conflict with this proposal; agreement with previous speakers - no park
23 within this project; separator should be continued (Wiseman Park); proposal is insufficient
24 for recreational use; proposal for "high density" inappropriate for eastside urban edge;
25 regarding soundwalls - requests clarification from developer - does not want any
26 soundwalls around this project, there are other ways to mute sounds - landscaping, etc.;
27 concerns regarding drainage - adobe soils in area already experiencing drainage problems;
28 wants open space between existing and proposed neighborhoods.
29 Kevin Lamar - 1084 Wren Drive - New homeowner - understood there would be
30 development in this area, but nothing as dense as proposal; already too much traffic in this
.31 area; Casa Grande at Ely Blvd. South will need to be signalized.
32 Paul Gallagher - 1220 Wren - Was letter from Rich Miran received by Commission? (yes);
33 would like to see market survey done by developer; property under Williamson Act, what
34 is City planning in this regard, schools are already too crowded, when/where will a new
35 school be built in this area ?; drainage problems - developer promised a meeting/walk -thru
36 property to describe drainage mitigations with existing neighborhood - meeting never held;
37 most of developer decisions are based on economics; traffic issue in area - Wren will
J8 become a main intersection; look at Williamson Act and take time to think about this area;
39 Wiseman Park needs to be extended; many unanswered questions to this development.
40 Leah Bettencourt - 12 Starling Drive - Daughter couldn't go to Adobe School - just
41 bought home in area two years ago; great worries about depreciation of property because
42 of adjacent high density and poor planning.
43 Kim Bayless - Lives near Ely and Corona - this area is being over - built; all property values
44 will depreciate; schools very crowded; shopping facilities, downtown area limited; families
45 will live in Sebastopol or Healdsburg or try to stay in Marin County;
46 Fredrick' RolfberQ - 1020 Garfield - Concerns with high density development proposed;
47 homes used to be equity for future, no longer; density all over California is the problem;
48 thinking about moving from Petaluma; need more /extended parks; public becomes
49 distrustful of local government because of this type of proposal; a greater value must be
50 put on aesthetics; parks are overloaded now; schools are already overloaded, in crisis;
5.1 airport might save open space areas; this density is unacceptable to neighborhood; create
52 green zone around development; schools overcrowded - already 32 kids per class at
I LaTercera; this project would be a disaster to schools; this could wipe out the airport and
2 development could go to Adobe Road, has seen it in other cities.
3 David Tieken - Brengle Court - Has lived in Petaluma whole life; loves Petaluma; why
4 would precedent be changed after 30 years with much higher density now ?; City needs
5 money from development fees, but existing homeowners will suffer in depreciation of
6 existing homes; staff looking at needs of developer., not at existing homeowners with
7 density proposed; residents in existing neighborhoods lose with depreciation of homes and
8 degrading life styles; wants fairness - look at 30 years of development; major objections
9 with project as proposed.
10 Matt Hudson - Developer representative - described fences along Ely and Casa Grande;
11 described proposed "round- about "; compared price ranges in Cross Creek with Victoria
12 Subdivision; other courtyard developments have been very successful and owners are
13 happy with their homes; not zero lot -line homes or patio houses, minimum sideyard
14 setbacks are 5 feet; comparison of subdivision to adjoining existin g subdivisions; Parcel
15 "C" (proposed 48.5 ac. Urban Separator) has value to City of Petaluma; proposed
16 construction will stay inside of existing Urban Limit Line; regarding setbacks - Casa
17 Grande Road/Ely, there will be setbacks of 30 -60; responded to question regarding
18 wetlands - working with Corps of Engineers to mitigate this issue; City Parks Department
19 did not recommend any parks within development; authorized to state that developer can
20 extend Wiseman Park if Commission requests; other homes built by this developer are
21 excellent quality, these will be also; Old Adobe School District has indicated that
22 expansion of schools will be ready before these homes are occupied; has made effort to
23 talk to neighborhood regarding concerns; can live with closing Wren and Rogers to thru-
24 traffic; concept of feathering - describes several ways to achieve feathering; describes
25 average lot sizes in adjacent neighborhoods; this is not a small-lot subdivision; effort ain and for first-time
to
26 provide housing for retired persons not wanting large lots to maint
27 homebuyers; important addition to Petaluma housing stock, right place for them.
28 Doyle Heaton - Delco Builders/Mardel - Developer - Has been builder in Petaluma for 10
29 years, has worked well with staff during this time; takes exception to people who speak
30 unfavorably of Corona/Ely development; getting input from all sides; will put Wiseman
31 Park through if City asks for it; here to cooperate.
32
33 The public hearing was continued to January 9, 1996.
34
35 Commission Discussion:
36
37 Commissioner Feibusch - Can't agree with moving the Urban Limit Line for this
38 Commissioner Thomason - Agrees with Commiione project.
ss r Feibusch regarding moving Urban
39 Limit Line; also feathering questions; does not support the proposed density; already too
40 much traffic at high school; can't see more development in that area.
41 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Questened whether project merits PUD status, can't agree
42 with moving Urban Limit Line; disbursement
doesn't see much response to SPARC i
43 requests (concern with clustering and 10% diversity); problems with early termination of
44 the Williamson Act contract.
45 Commissioner Wick - Likes round -about concept; this courtyard concept is better than
46 most City has seen; only reason to move Urban Limit Line i
47 housing (this i s to accommodate affordable
s not affordable housing); in considering rationale presented for moving
48 Urban Limit Line, all objectives submitted can be accom fished through
49 compelling reason to move line; does not see justificationf or moving 'h other means, no
50 project lacks meaningful separation between existing b hne m this proposal;
51 environmental review - wetlands should at least be delineated; constraints should ding
I 52 and avoided - that has not been adequately addressed; low profile policy in
1 General Plan; park availability; appropriateness of courtyard design; cannot support
2 currently proposed project.
3 Commissioner Torliatt - Agrees with other Commissioners; cannot support moving Urban
4 Limit Line; neighbors have valid concerns; cannot support proposed project; wetlands
5 issue in environmental report not adequately presented; Parks and Recreation Department
6 needs to receive copy of these minutes to see how neighborhood feels regarding parks.
7 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Several letters regarding clustered homes in proximity to
8 park - indicating the environment would have little merit without park.
9 Commissioner Torliatt - Courtyard development in this area not acceptable.
10
11
12 NEW BUSINESS
13 PUBLIC HEARINGS
i'4
15 III. MCNEAR LANDING SUBDIVISION; YOUNG AMERICA HOMES; 1063
16 PETALUMA BLVD. SOUTH; AP NO. 008 - 530 -004; FILE NO.
17 REZ/TSM0139(hg).
18
19 Proposal for a 187 -unit residential development of the 17 acre McNear Hill site.
20 The project includes applications for: 1) Adoption of a Mitigated Negative
21 Declaration 2) A rezoning to PUD and a PUD Development Plan for a 187 -unit
22 residential development with associated public and private improvements; 3) A
23 General Plan Amendment to establish a 1.3 acre combined public park and riparian
24 corridor /river walk; and 4) a Tentative Subdivision Map to create 177 residential
25 lots and public and common parcels.
26
27 Assistant Planner Hans Grunt presented the staff report.
28
.29 Questions from Commission regarding history of project and clarification of previous
30 environmental reviews, circulation patterns, and traffic impacts (since original proposal).
31
32 City Traffic Engineer Allan Tilton - Discussed traffic signalization requirements /timetables
3 i for project; project will incrementally add to traffic congestion on Highway 101 and its
34 on -ramps and in general vicinity of project.
35 Planning Director Tuft - Traffic issues for the general aera and relationship to land uses
36 will be dealt with in South Blvd. Specific Plan; density has been proposed and accepted
37 since original project over 10 years ago.
38 Commissioner Feibusch - Questions regarding transit stops.
39 Traffic Engineer Tilton - Park and Ride facility nearby is being pursued.
40 Commissioner Torliatt - Potential to provide questions regarding maximum allowable
41 building heights.
42
43 The public hearing was opened.
44
45 Gordon Dow - Dow Dermatologics - property owner adjacent to (west) of project site -
46 some observations and comments regarding development - concerns with existing traffic,
47 poor visibility in area; McNear Avenue must be signalized; visibility concerns /sound
48 barrier from Petaluma Blvd. - sound barrier /vegetation could cause access /vision problems
4:9 to adjacent properties; second - growth eucalyptus should be removed and more
so compatible /safe plantings made; comments regarding design of six -foot fence - has met
51 with developer adequate street lighting should be required.
I Rob ONeal - Young America Homes - Involved with project for over a year; received
2 preliminary staff and SPARC reviews - incorporated comments into Preliminary Tentative
3 Map; hope for price of single - family homes in $150,000 range; grading minimis
4 included balconies on second floors, views to river; no garages along views from Petaluma
5 River; zero lot lines to maximize yards; high density project with privacy - neighborhood
6 feel; Young America Homes very excited about this project, much time and effort into
7 project with staff/SPARC input.
8 Planning Director Tuft - Prepared to bring conditions back to Commission at next
9 Tuesday's meeting.
10 Commissioner Wick - Aware that City wants high- density project on this site? 11 -12 units
11 proposed here - how is marketability of a higher density?
12 Rob ONeal - Target market first -time homebuyers.
13
14 The public hearing was continued to Planning Commission meeting of December 5, 1995.
15
16 Commission Discussion:
17
18 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Stren-cqhs of current proposal: street front facing river is
19 commendable; traditional styles of architecture well done; park and river walk well done;
20 Concerns Blvd. noise issues; back -on treatment to Petaluma Blvd. South; units fairly
21 similar (especially in massing and height) - some units shall be story and one - half, might be
22 some places on site where apartments might be located, some walkways should be
23 provided one side of street where possible; suggestion - possible to rezone area along
24 Blvd. as commercial? might solve some sight/noise problems; should reconsider pieces of
25 this site; more interconnections (pedestrian/vehicle) might be possible; not critical of
26 developer, understands constraints of property.
27 Commissioner Feibusch - Gateway project; must be well designed, good project.
28 Commissioner Wick - Likes design attributes of homes; public amenities provided; good
29 circulation suggestion along river; would prefer not to see soundwall or back doors along
30 Blvd.; maybe look at retail/office along Blvd.
31 Commissioner Torliatt - Concerns with parking on site.
32 Commissioner Feibusch - Agrees that there should be a signal at McNear Avenue.
33 Rob ONeal - Mr. Kieckefer has a Vesting Tentative Map which will expire shortly; owner
34 could go ahead with townhome project if this project misses deadlines.
35 Commissioner Torliatt - would like to see photo montage of all units as seen from river
36 and coming over highway 101.
37 Commissioner Wick - Possibility of denial, but overshadowed by quality of design.
38
39 Staff to meet with developer in next few days to discuss issues raised.
40
41
42 IV. CLEAVER ACCESSORY STRUCTURE; 902 F STREET; AP NO. 008 -371-
43 019; (EXC95010).
44
45 Consideration of an exemption from the requirements of CEQA and action on a
46 request for an exception from the setback standards of the Zoning Ordinance for
47 an existing accessory building.
48
49 Principal Planner McCann presented staff report / project history.
50
51 The public hearing was opened.
52
I Claudia Cleaver - Applicant - Building was a second unit when property was purchased;
2 many historic buildings on street; many ways now to solve setback problems (fire walls,
3 fire sprinklering, etc.); does not agree with Conditions 9A and 9B - no problems with
4 balance of conditions; if building were moved, very difficult to get car in and out of
5 garage easement to rear not necessary.
6 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Questions regarding rear and sideyard setbacks; questions
7 regarding existing foundation.
8 Tim Connor - 302 9th Street - History of project; forfeited legal non - conforming status of
9 building; believes second unit will be created; application invalid - would be overturning
'10 decision of Planning Commission in 1991; only City Council can overturn decision of
11 Planning Commission; building is in need of complete overhaul; Ms. Cleaver is requesting
12 special treatment because of personal and professional relationships with City staff, my
13 entire record of last five years should be allowed to be presented in a legal case in future.
14 Planning Director Tuft - Met with Mr. Connor - disagrees with Mr. Connor regarding her
15 authority to accept this application.
16 Tim Connor - this is preposterous!, safety and health issue.
17 Planning Director Tuft - After meeting with Mr. Connor, concerns regarding unsafe
18 condition of structure has been referred to Building Division; all entitlements previously
19 granted!by Planning Commission have expired.
20 Vourhees Mount - 900 F Street - Upset that another application has been accepted by
21 City; efforts to circumvent legal channels have consistently been made by applicant,
22 expects structure will eventually become a second dwelling unit; structure is beyond
23 rehabilitation; deny application, require removal of building.
24 George Dowd - 912 F Street - Built an addition about five years ago - was required to
25 follow setbacks; this should not even be considered; does not fit into neighborhood.
26 Jeff Sacher - 902 F Street - (co- applicant) - could not afford to move unit and create an
27 accessory dwelling unit; not intending to rent or create a second unit on property; just
28 want to fix up property; can't get a maintenance easement from rear property owner.
29
30 The public hearing was closed.
31
32 Planning Director Tuft - Another option would be to require the building to be modified
33 by removing a portion of the bulding to meet the 3' setback, leave the side to remain with
34 an easement.
35 Commissioner Torliatt - If this structure was not on parcel, could another accessory
36 structure be built?
37 Planning Director Tuft - Yes, with proper setbacks.
38 Commissioner Wick - Admonished applicant to clean up property; not pleased with
39 behavior of applicant or neighbors.
40 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Cannot allow a 1'6" setback.
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Wick and seconded by Commissioner vonRaesfeld
43 to grant the request for an exception from the setback standards of the Zoning Ordinance
44 to permit a side yard setback of 6" with the acquisition of a recorded maintenance
45 easement (rear yard setback shall remain at 3'), based on the findings and considerations
46 and subject to the amended conditions as follow:
47
48 Commissioner Barlas: Absent
49 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
50 Commissioner Thompson: Yes
51 Commissioner Torliatt: Yes
52 Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
53 Commissioner Wick: Yes
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
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Chairman Rahman: Absent
Findings:
1. The proposed accessory structure, as conditioned to address setbacks will conform
to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance Section 21-
201(f)(1 through 5) as it is consistent with the prevalent development pattern in
the residential district in which it is located.
2. The proposed accessory structure, as conditioned to address privacy will conform
to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance Section 21-
201(0(1 through 5) as no openings (doors, windows, etc.) shall be permitted on
the south and west building elevations, and shall not exceed 15' -0" in height.
3. The proposed accessory structure, as conditioned to address maintenance will
conform to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance Section
21- 201(f)(1 through 5), as the building shall either be moved to provide a
minimum setback of three (3) feet, or maintenance easements shall be obtained.
4. The proposed accessory structure, as conditioned to address drainage patterns will
conform to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance Section
21 -201(f )(1 through 5), as gutters and drains shall be constructed such that there is
no lot -to -lot drainage.
5. The proposed accessory structure, as conditioned to address design will conform
to the requirements and intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance Section 21-
201(0(1 through 5), as the building shall be painted to match the principal dwelling
unit.
6. The proposed exception, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and
intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan, specifically; to preserve
the City's architectural heritage by preserving an older structure.
7. The proposed accessory structure will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental
to the public welfare of the community as conditions have been imposed to
facilitate rehabilitation of a vacant structure, awhile preserving the architectural
flavor and privacy of an existing neighborhood.
8. This project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Section 15303, Conversion of
Small Structures.
Conditions:
From the Chief Building Official:
1. The west and south walls of the.building shall have no openings, shall be one (1)
hour rated, and shall comply with the Uniform Building Code.
From the Fire Marshal:
2. The use of extension cords in -lieu of permanent wiring is prohibited.
8
1
2 3. In residential buildings less than 3,500 sq.ft. in floor area, provide fire suppression
3 system at normal sources of ignition. These areas are specifically at clothes dryers,
4 furnaces, water heaters, fireplaces and in attic areas at vents and chimneys for
5 these appliances and equipment. In addition, spare sprinklers (one of each type in
6 the residence) and wrench shall be provided in a red spare sprinkler box in the
7 garage.
8
9 4. Provide smoke detectors in all sleeping rooms and common hallways. Detectors
10 shall be provided hardwired with battery backup_ Electrical circuits supplying
11 detectors shall be separate dedicated lines with no other devices on the circuits.
12
13 From the Engineering Department
14
15 5. Repair sidewalk across street frontage.
16
17 6. Pave driveway minimum 10' from back of sidewalk.
18
19 From the Planning Department:
20
21 7. A restriction shall be placed on the grant deed for the property precluding future
22 establishment of an accessory dwelling unit. Such restriction shall be recorded by
23 the applicant with the Sonoma County Recorder's office prior to the issuance of a
24 building permit within 30 days of this approval, with a copy provided to the
25 Planning Department.
26
27 8. Within 30 days from the issuance of the building permit, the fence shall be
28 completed (lattice erected), and inspected by the Building D
29
30 9. Building permit shall be applied for and obtained within 90 days of the date of
31 this decision. Prior to the issuance of a building permit to perform this work, the
32 property owner shall eider:
33
34 a. acquire a maintenance easement from 900 F (side yard), and 302 9th )-, with conformed copies as recorded with the Sonoma County
36 Assessor's office filed with the Planning Department within one year of the
37 date of this decision; and OR
38
39 b. move or modi& the accessory structure so that it provides a 3' 0-o- m t
40 sire pfepeFty4irre, 3' -0" setback from the rear property line to comply with
41 setback regulations for accessory structures within one year of the date of
42 this decision.
43
44 10. The accessory structure shall be painted to match the principal dwelling unit.
4 5
46 11. The applicant shall, at time of building permit submittal, provide a site plan
47 indicating drainage patterns, and the provisions to preclude lot -to -lot drainage.
48 Roof drainage shall comply with this condition.
49
50 12. Finish height of the accessory structure shall not exceed 15' -0 ".
51
9
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
13. No expansion (square footage or height) of this structure shall be permitted
without additional review and approval.
14. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its
boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when such claim or
action is brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or
local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim,
action, or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing
contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of
any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney's fees and costs,
and the City defends the action in good faith.
15. Rear yard debris to be cleaned within thirty days of date of this decision
ADJOURNMENT: 11 PM.
min 1128 / PLAN64