HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/26/1993Fw�
nlej
PLANNING. COMMISIS MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING -
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY HALL
October. 26, 1993 .
7:,00 P.M.
PETALUMA, CA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
ROLL CALL: Present: - Parkerson, Rahman, Shea, Thompson, vonRaesfeld Absent:.
Ben.nett,lorliatt
STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
Jim McCann, Principal ipal Planner
Dede Dolan, Assistanf Planner
Chairman
MINUTES OF October 12 were approved as'printed.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None.
CORRESPONDENCE: Letter from staff to Mr. DeJon .g (property owner of 410. Mountain
.
View); Letters from William White and Martin Parissenti regarding Petaluma Cinemas
EIR; Le ' itibr from John Siragusa regarding Country Club Estates 2A and 2A; October 21,
General Report..
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
OLD BUSINESS:
I. 'LEONARD JAY ENTERPRISES, INC., PHASE 1 COUNTRY 'CLUB 2a/3a,.
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AND COHEN'COUIZT, AP NO. 008-472-04, 07;10; FILE
REZ92006 (dd).
Consideration of written Planned Unit Development Guidelines and PUD
landscaping and replanting plan for 10 custom lots in Phase 1 of the hillside
subdivision.
Dede Dolan presented the staff report.
1
Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1993
Questions from Planning Commissioners regarding trees (phasing).
Bob Abbott - representing Petaluma Country Club Estates Partnership - Requested an
alternate; arrangement for the street trees to avoid having them included in an LAD; when
Unit 1b was developed, street trees were planted by property owners.
Planning' Director Pamela Tuft - Main concern is maintenance and successful growth of
street trees; right -of -way may need to be extended.
John Siragusa - President of Country Club Estates 1b Homeowner's Association - Supports
Mr. Abbott; driveway designs are unknown, trees could be destroyed during construction;
trees should not be in an LAD; would like several conditions incorporated into
development agreement.
Planning! Director Pamela Tuft - Concerns .regarding. City participation in a private,
agreement between developer and Homeowners Association - would like to review with
City Attorney's office.
John Siragusa - Since PUD Guidelines are being reviewed tonight - requests seat on
Architectural Control Committee to include a member from Country Club Estates 1b.
Planning: Director Pamela Tuft - City does not have authority to seat people on
Architectural Control Committee.
John Siragpsa - At least homes constructed in the first Phase should be full SPARC
questions regarding building setbacks, common walls; public hearing regarding LAD.
Joe Pierre - 1029 Glen Eagle area behind new area proposed for development - questions
regarding maintenance.
Ann Desendorf - LAD has been a sore point within lb Phase (open space area near creek
on McNear Avenue).
Bob Abbott - Park area is not in LAD.
Planning Director Pamela Tuft -- Mr. Abbott is correct, park area will be maintained by
City upon completion of improvements by developer and acceptance by the City.
A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman
to approve the amended Planned Unit Development Guidelines and the PUD Landscaping
and Replanting Plan subject to the following amended conditions:
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN BENNETT: Absent
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT Absent
COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes
Conditions
1. The PUD guidelines relating to landscaping shall be reviewed by the project
arborist to determine compliance with the recommendations of the tree study prior .
toy review by SPARC. The guidelines shall be amended as necessary to respond to
the arborist's evaluation, subject to review and approval by Planning staff and
SPARC.
2. The trees on Lot 4 shall be shown as existing until it is determined that removal is
necessary. The removal of trees on private lots shall be allowed only when deemed
necessary, subject to the process and the findings listed in the PUD guidelines.
3. The project arborist shall make recommendations regarding the ratio and size of the
remaining replacement and visual mitigation trees, subject to staff review, prior to
59
2
Ac
Planning Commission Minutes
October 26, 1993
consideration of the project by SPARC. In no case. shall the remaining replacement.
trees. be smaller than 1 gallon "deep .root" trees. The size of all trees to be planted
must be indicated on the landscaping and planting plan prior to submittal to
SPARC.
4. The landscaping plan should be amended to include at least ten = 24" box trees (or
equivalent) or larger forvisual mitigation prior to submittal to SPARC..
:.
5. The plan must be amended to show that all street trees must be-minimum 15 gallon
trees...
6. The landscaping plan must be amended, to include the street trees within the public
right of way._ The width of the public light of way shall be necessary
as necessaa
and dedicated with the Final Map for this phase,. subject to approval by City Staff..
Alternately, the PUD Guidelines shall be amended to require the planting and perpetual.
maintenance of "street trees" 0 individi'4 homeowners in conjunction with home
construction.
7. The setbacks shown on the landscaping replanting .plan shall. be removed. The .
requied setbacks to trees shall indicate that building shall not occur within the drip
line of existing trees to be preserved' (unless exceptions are approved -per the PUD
guidelines). For mature oaks (greater than 4'` in diameter) the plan shall show that
no building shall occur 'within an area measured 1 1/2 time the radius of the canopy
of ihe. tree measured from the tree trunk. 'This condition impacts Lots 4, 6, & 7 in
this phase.
NEVI! BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING:
II. DELCO, MOUNTAIN VALLEY VILLAS, SONOIVIA MOUNTAIN
PARKWAY_ AT
RAINIER CIRCLE, AP NO.. 136- 120 -60, 61; 78; FILE NO.'s TSM93007 and
REZ93411 (tp).
Consideration of a second amended Tentative Map and PUD Development
Plan /Guidelines for 70 detached` single - family homes within Phases 2A and 3 of
Mountain Valley Subdivision.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Principal Planner James McCann presented the staff report.
Doyle Heaton - Applicant - Requested' all common areas be included in ,Homeowner's
Association for liability purposes.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner vonRaesfeld and seconded by, Commissioner
Parkerson to recommend` to the City Council approval of Amendment #2 to the PUD
Development Plan, Development Standards .:and Tentative Map for- Mountain Valley
Subdivision Phases 2a and 3 based on the findings and subject to the following conditions:
3
Planning, Commission Minutes
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN BENNETT- Absent
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Absent
COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes
October 26, 1993 61
Findingsfor PUD Amendment
1. The amended development plan as conditioned, results in a more desirable use of
CD the land, and a better physical environment than would be possible under any single
zoning district or combination of zoning districts.
C Y ) 2. The amended plan for the proposed development, as conditioned, presents a unified
and organized arrangement of buildings which are appropriate in relation to
Z adjacent and nearby properties and associated proposed projects, and adequate
landscaping and /or screening is included if necessary to insure compatibility.
3. The natural and scenic qualities of the site will be protected through the
implementation of conditions of approval pertaining to landscape areas and
adequate available public and private spaces are designated on the Unit
Development Plan.
4.. The development of the subject, property,. in the manner proposed by the applicant
and conditioned by the City, will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in
the best interests of the'City and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit
of the zoning regulations of the City of Petaluma and with the Petaluma General
Plan.
5. The development is proposed on property which has a suitable relationship to one
or more thoroughfares Sonoma Mountain Parkway) to carry any additional traffic
generated by the development.
6. The use of a private court and common driveways as, proposed for cluster units
contributes to a more efficient use of land than would be possible through use of
standard public streets, and enforcement of conditions of approval and applicable
provisions in the project CC &R's will ensure that the development will function
adequately as designed.
7. This project has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) through preparation and certification of the Corona /Ely
Specific Plan EIR, and is exempt from further review, based upon Section 15182 of
the CEQA Guidelines, consistency with the Corona /Ely Specific Plan.
8. The creation of common area parcels for driveways and parking within the cluster
unit portion of the project will provide a more appropriate mechanism for
addressing maintenance and liability issues than can be achieved through individual
ownership of these areas.
Conditions for PUD Amendment #2
1. Except as herein amended, all previously adopted conditions of approval for the
Mountain Valley Subdivision shall remain in full force and effect.
4
62
Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1993
2. PUD Development Standards shall be amended prior to application for Final Map
to incorporate. the following revisions:
a. For plans 1 and -2, a minimum side and rear yard setback of 3' shall be
maintained adjacent to all property lines for the pnmary residence, except
where the residential lot abuts common driveway areas. No setback for the
p=ary-residence shall be required along a common property line shared
with a common area parcel created for driveway purposes, provided a -3' non -
buildable easement is established within the common area parcel adjacent to
'any portion of a building wall abutting the common parcel. No portion. of the
`building (including eaves, chimneys; and other. architectural elements) . shall
be, permitted to extend' across property lines.' Eaves, chimneys, and other
architectural elements shall_ not encroach more than 12" into the required 3'
setback area.
b. A minimum street frontage setback of 5' from property line shall be
maintained for plans 1 and 2. Deeper setbacks shall be maintained where
feasible.
C. No- accessory structures shall be permitted outside private fenced areas for
plans 1 and 2 except as permitted 'by the Homeowners Association.
Accessory structures exceeding 6' in height shall maintain a 3' minimum
setback from property lines and /or private yard fencing for plans 1 and 2.
No minimum setback.shall be required for accessory structures 6' or less in
height, except as regulated by the Uniform Building Code.
d. Accessory structures for plans 3, 4, and 5 shall meet Zoning Ordinance
: provisions for setbacks and lot coverage.
3. The - PUD Development Plan shall be amended prior to application for Final Map
to incorporate the following revisions and corrections:
a. Units for plans 1 and 2 shall be relocated to meet minimum setbacks as
' established under condition 2 above. The PUD Development Plan and
Tentative Map shall ' be . amended to reflect any required property line
relocations to. accommodate setback requirements, and revised dimensions.
b*." - Property lines for the common areas shall be redrawn to incorporate all open
parking stalls within the common driveway areas for plans 1 and 2. Common
area parcels shall be identified through the use of numbers or letters.
Findings for Tentative Map Amendment #2
1.` The proposed subdivision, as conditionally approved, together with provisions for. its
design and improvement, is consistent with. the General Plan and Corona /Ely
Specific Plan objectives, policies, general `landuses and programs.
I The site is physically suitable for the medium density, small lot detached single
family and cluster home development proposed, as conditionally approved.
3. " The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements 'therefore, as
conditionally approved, will not cause substantial environmental damage, and no
substantial or avoidable injury -will occur to fish and /or wildlife or their habitat.
5
Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 1991
4.. The design of the Subdivision and the tYPe of improvements proposed will not
conflict with easements, acquired ;by the at large, for access through or of
property within the proposed subdivision.
Conditions for Tentative Map Amendment #2
1. - Tlie subdivider .,shall comply with the following requirements of the City Engineer:
a.,, Except as modified herein, all previously adopted Engineering Department
conditions. of approval for Mt. Valley Villas per Resolution • 93 -274 shall
remain in full force and effect.
b. Lots 63, 64, 65, 66, 671..68, 69 and 70 and common areas serving those lots are
dependent on those improvements installed within Mt. Valley Phase 1A.
Annexation to the existing covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC &R's)
for Mt. Valley 1A or a maintenance agreement for private storm drainage
system, the 100 year surface drainage overflow, landscape, irrigation and
other facilities within this area shall be required between lots served by this
system and shall be submitted in a recordable form. This agreement shall
also specify timing of maintenance and be in a form acceptable to City staff,
and recorded concurrent with the Final Map.
c. The public storm drain located on common area driveway and side yards for
Lois 64, 65 and 66 shall be .contained within an exclusive 10 -foot dedication
easement.
d.. The sanitary sewer located within the common area driveway and side yards
for Lots - 64, 65 and 66 shall be contained .within an exclusive 10 -foot
dedicated easement. Turf block shall be used in this area to permit
maintenance access by City vehicles. Bollards and chains shall be installed to
preclude public trespass through private yard areas.
e. Parcel A (between Lots 5 and 23) shall be used solely for pedestrian and
emergency vehicular access (as required by the Fire Marshal). This
requirement shall be achieved through the use of bollards and signing to the
satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and Engineering Department.
f. The common area driveways and parking spaces shall have a structural. -
t.
section to meet a traffic index of 4.0 design requirements.
g. Sanitary sewer and water services. within the common driveway areas shall be
private and maintained in accordance with the CC &R's for this project.
h.. The common area driveways and private court shall have a distinctive surface
treatment so as to clearly differentiate between- private and public street
improvements. within this development.
2., The subdivider shall comply with the following requirements of the Chief Building
Official:
a. Cluster Units 1 and 2 shown on the amended PUD Development Plan dated
10/11/93 by MacKay and Somps, are required by the Building Code,
Chapter 5, to be a minimum of 3 feet from the property line or that wall
63
IN
Me �' ,
Planning. Commission Minutes October 26, 1991
within the 3 foot setback be of I hour fire rated construction.. However; the
walls facing or adjacent a public.way'havng a nonbuildable easement will
be-exempt the hour fire rated- restriction.
3. The following, revisions shall be' incorporated into the Tentative Map, subject: to
staff approval prior to application for Flnal,Map:
a. The map shall. be- labeled as Amendment #2 to distinguish it from the
amendment approved' on October- 4 1993.
b. Common area parcels shall be identified through the use of * numbers or
letters.
c. Common area parcels shah be redrawn to include all uncovered parking
within the cluster unit portion of the project.
4: Locations for use of the retaining wall . fence detail shall be identified, and subjecvtb
staff approval at time of improvement plan review.
5. The Final Map shall incorporate the following:
a. Information identifying all common area parcels through use of numbers or
letters, and specifying. ownership of these areas with reference to the project
CC &'R's.
b., A statement on the last sheet referencing all regulatory documents and
.'approvals for the project.
C. All areas of inundation affected by the 100 year storm flows shall be
.. identified on the map.
6. All previously adopted conditions of approval for the Mountain Valley Subdivision,
except as herein amended, shall remain in full force and effect.
III. PETALUMA CINEMAS EXPANSION, PACII+IC THEATRES, 1363 MCDOWELL
BOULEVARD NORTH, AP NO. 007 411 - 20, 2'1; FILE NO. EIQ92006 am).
Pub_ lic comment on the Draft Environmental Impact. Report for the expansion to.'
the Petaluma. Cinemas site which 'includes six new buildings with a total area of
69,611 sq. ft:, including: a new eight - screen cinema building..
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
James McCann presented the staff report.
Gloria. Root - PAD Inc. (EIR Consultant) Summarized primary points in the Draft EIR:
Lack of design consistency with other nearby parcels, buildings across . McDowell;
transportation /access issues; PM /peak traffic issues; specific access recommendations;
discussed hydrology; potential increase 'in flooding, enlargement or enhance_ ment of Holm
Road ditch necessary.
1 7
Planning ; Commission Minutes October 26, 1993
Commissioner Parkerson - Questions /concerns regarding lack of alternative transportation
methods ao the site.
Al "Bianchi Attorney for applicant -, Applicant in basic accord with mitigation measures
discussed.; in DEIR.
Jerry Schwartz owner of Jerome's Cafe - Petaluma does not need more fast food chains
dotting ffeeway exits; traffic is. already a problem; does- not object to theaters; Petaluma
needs businesses that will serve. homes (with - services) in the area; would like to see a large
discount store or something similar; integrity of homegrown businesses at stake; need more
retail, not more restaurants.
Merritt Sher - 455 North Point, SF 94133 - adjacent property owner; no objections to
proposed plan; effective parking plan will not impact adjacent property owners.
Michael Bai rd - Cinema. employee - theaters provide a- much needed jobs for teenagers,
plus a good place to go.
Princival Planner Jim McCann - Preliminary SPARC review scheduled for November 10;
applicant-is working on revisions to site plan to respond to comments in the Draft EIR.
The public hearing was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 9,
1993.
ADJOURNMENT 8:55 PM.
min1026 /pcmin9
J
65
i