Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/14/1992;�' e, Planning Commission Miautes REGULAR MEETING April 14, 1992 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA COMMISSIONERS: Bennett, Libarle *, Nelson, Parkerson, Rahman, Tarr; Thompson STAFF:. Pamela Tuft, Planning Director I James McCann, Principal Planner Teryl Phillips, Associate Planner Dede Dolan, Assistant Planner * 0airman APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 1992 were approved as printed. PUBLIC COMMENT: f Martin Krnaich - Home fronting on Wiseman Park - against any permanent buildings ( restrooms, snackbars, etc.) or expansion of softball fields at. park; portable snackbar was at park last week and lots of trash was left behind; parking is already a problem and would only get worse. Pamela Tuft - Suggested concerns be taken to Jim Carr, Parks and Recreation Director and to City Council. Tim Downing - No additional softball facilities are needed in'Wiseman park; tennis court should be! built instead of another softball field and permanent snackbar /restrooms; there are no facilities for adult recreation at the park and there should be. Gary Shindler - 17 Wynoochee - concerns with widening of Ely and placement of median at Chehalis; this change will necessitate a rerouting into residential areas by many cars. DIRECTOR'S REPORT`. None. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None CORRESPONDENCE: Letter from Business Park (Item No. S). 1 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read. i LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: applicant requesting continuance of Rancho Arroyo (Was noted on agenda.) NOTE: Underline = Addition &4k , eovef = Deletion 110 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1992 OLD.BUSINESS CONTINUED PUBLIC. HEARINGS I. COOPER, 4.6 GRAYLAWN, AP NO. 006-431-02, FILE NO. CUP92005(;kt). . 1. Continued consideration of an EIQ and Conditional Use Permit for a dwelling group at 42, 44 and 46 Graylawn. (Item continued from March 10, 1992) (This item was discussed as Item No. 2.) The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Pamela Tuft presented the staff report. Commissioner Tarr - Has the City Attorney looked at this project? Pamela Tuft - No, but all recordable documents will be referred to the City Attorney for review. Mrs. Cooper - Applicant - Will begin eviction proceedings and all other items in staff report within 30 days; would like to occupy 46 Graylawn prior to conversion of 46A and 46B into one unit; agreed to all conditions in staff report. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to grant a conditional use permit based on the amended conditions listed below: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Conditions 1. This use permit shall permit a dwelling group consisting of three existing dwelling units - 42, 44, and 46 Graylawn. 2. P- e-r- PIanfiing: Commis-sikon- eenditio-n- o€- approv a� #2- ©a42- f4 & /9- 1;- shali -b"me d ta- retltri - prior- tc� final- inspeet on a€ i rrce�€ ��e ti€ica#�- a €-ec- etTaney46r- 46- -Gr -ayir Permits for the conversion. of the two one -o€ the -vd- illegal -- wnf&r-ning- -tomes units known as 46A and 46B Graylawn into one unit shall be . . . .... . -- . n i-.. ..n. r .-. r 11 — 1 1 _11' necessary remodeling work shall be pursued in a timely mann subiect to City staff review and approval. shall -bo elinrixt�d- {dem ©lisl�d } strbjeet -�t�- std € €- reviet -cl a�raval:--- P- e3 for- d�mdlrtion- re�deai�- ��- c- enver� - �e- ste��re -tQ- one -�t shat -1 -be- obtained- Pr- ior- t ©�ern�it�- re�de�i� wo-Fk .-- Irr- ot to-e€€ee- €�f3e� are € oet�ge- re�ire�ft�r- �- d�vellrng- grip•; 46�r- G= r�yiawn� hall -be- the -�r�t tlemolishe�: I � . ........... ..._ ....... ,..... _._..._........._._ _... _- _._._. I� City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes The remodeled structure shall remain as an illc only be reoccupied as a single unit 3. Any outstanding building permits shall be finaled. a Tle property owner shall file for the following: April 14, 1992 111 (a) A parcel map application for three lots; Parcel 1 would include 12 Bernice Court and 54 Graylawn, Parcel 2 would include the dwelling group of units 42, 44, and 46 Graylawn, Parcel 3 would contain 48 Graylawn and 46B Graylawn. and (b) Two A conditional use permit applications to aittboriae legalize 54 Graylawn (considered non- conforming) and - 464- Gmy�awn- (c- ensidefed- illegal) as an accessory dwell ings- on -tbei-r - respective- pareels. and (c). Within 30 calendar days of the date of this meetinLy, a recordable agreement T���nfliti ©nal- i:T�e-- Pe��t� -€e� - die- ac- c�sso-ry- �welii�gs- shall- nc�t- be�e € €ect }ve -ate the= �erti €icate--af-- Qee-up anc-y- €or- 46- �Faylaw-H- shall -- not -be -grant p - 4- iintil-tl}e -Page4 Map � beea+ec- or-EledANitd- the- Sonema- Geufity- Reeorde-r'-s, Office: 3 prior to issuance of said Certificate of Occupancy. UG, ;GVIGW F__ i111U i1 J JfUVCU uy l. lty state ana recoraea against the title of the subject op prerty prior to issuance of the Certificate of *Occupancy for 46 Graylawn Avenue t 112 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1992 5. Access to the dwelling group shall be provided via the existing 20 feet access strip from Graylawn Avenue. Access easements shall be required for 54 Graylawn until such time as access may be available from Bernice Court, and also for 48 Graylawn. The access easement shall be recorded concurrently with the parcel map. 6. Separate gas and electric meters shall be installed for each' dwelling to the specifications of PG &E before a Certificate of Occupancy may be issued for 46 - Graylawn. II. CRANE GLEN, 1171 ELY ROAD, AP NO. 136- 120 -24, FILE NO.'s REZ91016, CUP91042, TSM91012(dd). 1. Continued consideration of an Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Continued consideration of rezoning from PCD to PUD. 3. Continued consideration of Unit Development Plan. 4. Continued consideration of Subdivision Ordinance Modification to allow three units to access off a single driveway. 5. Consideration of a revised Tentative Map for 21 detached single - family dwellings. (Item continued from March 10, 1992) This public hearing was closed at the March 10 meeting and was reopened at this meeting to allow discussion /presentation by applicant. DeDe. Dolan. presented the staff report. Commissioner Libarle - This project keeps getting more and more. complicated; why weren't these items (mitigations) brought out before this meeting? DeDe Dolan - revised mitigations resulted from discussion by Commission after visit to the site. Commissioner Tarr - Requested clarification on the number of trees to be saved. Commissioner Nelson - Will homes be facing onto public street and be clearly numbered (except the two flag lots) for emergency response? - Pamela Tuft - Yes, homes face onto public streets (clarified access). Commissioner Rahman - Has a problem with the design of the project - in. particular, the tandem parking is a major concern. Tony ,Korman - Applicant - Project has been redesigned to address the concerns of the Planning Commission at its last meeting; relocation of the soundwall should not be required; described tree removal / replacement plan; there will be 28 more trees on the site at the end of the project than now; concerns with several PUD Development Plan conditions, front yard setbacks. Pamela Tuft - Soundwall relocation is only to help ensure that significant oak is retained in a healthy state. Commissioner Rahman - Aren't there too many trees, too close together now? Commissioner Parkerson - The architecture should he given a chance (tandem garage design); a new grove of trees could be created by moving the cul -de -sac maybe another lot could be removed. Commissioner Bennett - Concerns with preservation of grove - this is totally off track now - prepared to vote against project for this reason. Commissioner Thompson - Creation of new grove of trees should be considered, supports moving wall back to other side of oak. f 0 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1992 113 Commissioner Tarr - In this case, tree replacement should include street trees and front yard trees. Commissioner Rahman - Tandem parking design is not a good design. " John Meserve - Arborist - oaks might become stressed if they begin to be irrigated, however, they have a reasonable chance of survival. Tony Dorman - Objection to moving the soundwall, the oak will not be harmed on private property. The public hearing was closed. Subsequent to the Commission discussion and concensus on several amendments to mitigations, Tony Korman, developer and representative of owner, agreed to mitigations. CO A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner (y) Thompson to recommend to the City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration based on the findings and subject to the amended mitigations listed below: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An initial study has been conducted by this lead agency, which has evaluated the .potential for this project to cause an adverse effect -- either individually or cumulatively -- on wildlife resources. For this purpose, wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability." (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code). 3. There is no evidence that the proposed project would have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources. Mitigations 1. Pine trees numbers 8,22,55,57, &59 -7, -&68, shall be retained. PUD guidelines shall allow the flexibility for property owners to remove the trees (and provide replacements on a 1:1 basis) if °the trees are found by a certified arborist to be unhealthy or to pose a hazard, subject to administrative Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee review once other trees in the subdivision are established. The location of the house on Lot 15 must be evaluated by the project arborist (and the map revised accordingly, subject to City staff review and approval) prior to Final Map approval, to insure that adequate setbacks are maintained from the trees. 2. Nolte: - Tbe- Pl�xntng- Eo-mmissio-a- should- Fecommed mitigutian -a -E � not -bath 5 :..M ...._,... ......... _.....,............ ...y,.,......... _...._...._,_.... -,. � .................. . 114 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1992 a: The six oaks in front of Lots 16 and 17 shall be retained (trees #84 -89). The location of the house and driveways on these lots shall be evaluated by the project arborist to insure that adequate setbacks from the trees are maintained. The arborist shall make recommendations on whether or not the grove should be thinned to insure the long term.health of the grove. The removal of any of these trees (upon recommendation of the arborist) shall be subject to approval by SPARC prior to Final Map approval. Any trees within this oak grove which are proposed to be removed must be replaced on a 1:1 basis with 24" box sized trees. = s - t-��- Prajeet- ��� -t� e-- r�d�gned --te -- avoid-- tl�- win�r�-- © €= �ine�- et`rt�Fely €�seased -- pines � kal> - ho-- � ��diatel -y:- 'fie- �l}e�= ines�- shall - -be r�plaeed- �ti:k - -a - � ©F� -s�ri� able- tepee- ies- in- �- Fnc� -e- lo-gieal- e��g�ratier� -dve� time -stibjeet -- to- -a mifxs4a - &RARC - review: --- 41�lote- lei - sc�l�rtio�� -may retluire the rno=aa €d € -tl�e- grove - © €- ak tries - the -from o €_Le+546-- and47 -. 3. The significant grove of oak trees at the southwest corner of the property shall be preserved (trees #134 -136 and 138 - 145). The -ter a.11- shall-- be- Fe4ec- ated4o.t -he HO4k -t©- allow- the- 4- aFge - oak- tree--# 145 - au444ie- sfna4lef -tFee- #-136- 4©- be- 4 ©eated -©ii tl�e -au- hide -ef tho-soaFxl�vell- t�- }�ttr- e- tl�e- pFeser�atlo�rof- these- tFees- aF}d- to-eFtkaFtc -e the-- v ieb�F - - the-- lFeC?r- €F ©Frt -tl - street The owner shall anniv fnr anci rPraiva recordation of Final Map The project arborist shall make a recommendation as to whether or not this grove should be thinned to improve the appearance and health of the rove. The removal of any of these trees (upon recommendation of the arborist shall be subject to approval by SPARC prior to Final Map approval. The applicant shall provide replacements for any trees in the grove which are to be removed. 4. The applicant shall submit a plan which shows all trees to be retained, all trees to be removed, and all replacement trees for SPARC review 5. A supplement to the tree study shall be prepared to evaluate those trees which are proposed to remain and shall include measures to protect the health of the trees to be preserved. 6. The replacement plan shall include Qne-- o-r-- Fnore --o€ the following elements: (�lai�rtiFtg �o-m�iss�o-Fi should - choose- eneor- �nere- �- pr -ovide altc�xato-l�F�gttag�}: a. All trees removed shall be replaced on a 1:1 basis (including a replacement for the one tree removed from the site prior to the Planning Commission hearing). Approximately 1/3 of the replacement trees (e��. ently- 33•- tFees) sho-uld shall be 24" box trees to provide immediate visual impact. A minimi,m la�idse�pixg- tFees- t�pica�ly --- e�trat �s- Feplaeement trees; a =. -- stree -- trees -- and-- �i�or}t: - -yard jdivisi ©Fl-- cif- this- tie- sh�x�ld -F}ot City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1992 1 b. A new windrow of trees shall be planted along the northern property line in addition -zfl as part. of providing replacement trees on other portions of the site. The species and placement of these trees shall be subject to approval by SPARC. -- ADD /-©1i - C. The applicant shall provide an open space area large enough to replant a significant number of large trees in a grove pattern toward the southwest eorne+ end of the site. This could be accomplished by slightly reducing the length of the cul -de -sac to avoid the grove area. (Note this solution may CD require the removal of the grove of oak trees in the front of Lots 16 and 17.) CO A1D�41i CO ----- - - - -d: ------ The-pr ©j�e - shall -bo-- redesigned - �- extend -the- proposed -�e-H ,& Mdse -aping mediae- ��- � c�id�- �vt�-- additiorral- media -��- to- - all ©w- �hreo-- F ©ws -�£ �tFeet gees -{ his-© pt����vil- 1- r�q��re�a- s�ga�I- redesigci� ------ - - --e: - - - -- T- he- appliean� shall- be- -r-esp©p,-,iblo-- for-- Fecre- atirrg -4 -ho- wLindraw -of €- site. - -'4e i applieai+t - shall-- be-- Fespensib4e - -€o x�t�lling- ' w��r -c��- iii- t�e- Dr- beervse. pay ato-F- o-r- e�- nlertg- �o�on�- E� Fbo-- elesig� o€ the- wing- ev, c44- o- appFoval,b� t 7. The applicant must insure the health of all replacement trees for at least one year after they are planted. - - - - - -- Fie- applicant- sba€1- pr ©vido- {pr4o tfl- the- �ee��daioe�rf -the €in�rl -gyp }lie- €urds -te the- Ci��- t$c-e� eke- cost -Q €- those - trees- �hfe- h- e- aenot- b�- r- e�lac- ecl -o� �i��- to-�eak�le the -�- icy- t ©- begirr�o-�st�b�isb- err�f -£ rte- ��1F ©w -ice- the- ���rrt� - © €- Cdr ©na- �- reel� t��ban- seepar- atop- eFea -- �' lie - del- lar-- ameunt- tfl- bo-- tr�n�r- rid -t ©- Abe- -Eit�- shall -be based -� -- the - -eat - {pure��se- end-- �nst�llatio-n - } -�€ - � --€i- €teen -- gall ©n - -�- rye --e-f- -ten ap}�F ©psi- ate -- s pec- ies-- �s�rbjcet--- tt�--- appr- coal-- b�-- Eity-- =sta €€ - �itb- -3�pu� -- €ror��- -the 8.9 Deed restrictions shall. be placed on lots which contain trees that are . required to be preserved and on those lots on which replacement trees are planted. The restriction shall indicate that the removal of the trees is only permitted subject to administrative SPARC review and that replacement trees will be required. The wording of this restriction shall be subject to approval by staff. In addition a similar clause relating to the preservation of trees shall be added as a note on the Final Map and to the PUD development standards. Violations of the deed restrictions and PUD standards will be processed as standard Zoning violations through the City's abatement procedures. 9.44. The applicant shall comply with the following mitigations identified in the Corona /Ely Specific Plan EIR: a. The developer must contribute a fair share towards the construction of required transportation circulation improvements. 7 116 City of Petaluma Plannin Commission Minutes April 14, 1992 b. The developer must comply with the City's erosion control standards during construction and must pay storm drainage impact fees. C The developer must contribute a fair share towards construction of Pressure Zone IV improvements and pay the City's standard water connection fee. d. The developer is responsible for the cost of extending a new sewer line into the project from the new common main and pay the connection fees. e. The developer will be required to pay school impact fees. f. The developer must participate in the landscape assessment district for all landscaping on public lands. g. The developer shall be responsible for the cost of installation of the noise barrier along the property's Sonoma Mountain Parkway frontage. The applicant will be responsible for providing improvement plans for the Sonoma Mountain Parkway frontage. The plans shall include a .minimum six foot high barrier to the specifications of the Sonoma Mountain Parkway Design Guidelines. Said frontage improvements shall coordinate with the adjacent Mountain. Valley Improvement Plans and any future plans for the Baptist Church and shall be subject to approval by SPARC. h. The development shall be designed. in conformance with the recommendations of the preliminary soil evaluation done for the site. i. Construction shall be designed to occur during the dry months of the year, and adequate. erosion control should be used. The ' developer shall implement construction period dust control measures such as water sprinkling, proper scheduling of major dust generating activities, and storage pile covering. j. In the event that archaeological remains are encountered during grading, work shall be halted temporarily and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for evaluation of the artifacts and to recommend future action. The local Indian community shall also be notified and consulted in the event any archaeological remains are uncovered. € €: ------ 4 € - €ke a�pkca�t- does- no-t- agFee -t ©- the - move- nritjga�ioo-s -or -is -not �r�par�d �e -� € €�� equa�l� aec- ep€ able�nitig�ti�s- f ©F- ednsi�erat- ion -by-t� e- P4a�ing��nrm3ss- roo-,-�eti ©n o-�r- tl�e - ping ��-- subdi�io-r} -- map - --sl} all - -loo- -- suspended-- �o-til--- additiarial e��iroume�tal- �d� i� co-mpleted- aud- allerr�ate- mitigatio-n-- rneasurus- a- r�Pres e�te�l whi lr -ate acceptable =t4 -bow-tie- a}�pli� ant- ao-El -the- P I afl n iRg-Gomffll si&lan: �If-the apps kart --di & agr-ees--- w4l+--- the - - -P anaing -- Commissi ©4s - -- €endings--- tegar-d -ng- -the sigm €ieanee -of - tl�e- p�Qjee - impact -or- the- nee�ssa�3J - �r�itigati ©n�, -pan- appeal - can -k�e €iled- whh -4he 04ty -C-ouneii) A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed rezoning of AP No. 136 - 120 -24 from PCD to PUD based on the findings listed below: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1992 117 COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings 1. The development plan as conditioned results in a more desirable use of the land and a Ibetter physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning district by providing the opportunity for small detached units of a unique style. i 2. The plan for the proposed development, as conditioned, presents a unified and CY) organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in co relation to nearby properties and adequate landscaping and screening will be reviewed by SPARC to insure compatibility. 3. Tl e loss of the scenic qualities of the site will be mitigated through an intensive replanting plan, which will be subject to approval by SPARC. 4. TYie development of the Swan property in the manner proposed by the applicant, and as conditioned by the City to mitigate visual impacts from the loss of trees, will no,t be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interest of the City, and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations and General Plan of the City of Petaluma. 5. The circulation pattern of the proposed PUD has been dictated by the development of the adjacent . Mountain Valley and - has been designed to have suitable relationship to the adjacent circulations system. Cumulative traffic impacts from the development of the Corona Ely area have been addressed and mitigated through the implementation of the Corona /Ely Specific Plan. A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson to recommend to the City Council approval of the Planned Unit Development Plan (elevation drawings dated 12/2/91, Proposed Tentative Map dated March, 1992, Proposed .Development Standards dated January 17, 1992) subject to the amended conditions listed below: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: No COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Condition's: 1. The mitigations identified in the Initial Study and the Corona Ely Specific plan shall be' conditions of approval of the Planned Unit Development plan. (Note: The mitigations are not listed separately here to avoid repetitiveness }a44te—sta€€+e -part. Staff does propose that the mitigations be listed in the final Resolutions approving the; Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Unit Development Plan) 9 118 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1992 2. The Planned Unit Development Program shall be modified to state: "After completion of the arborist's report all trees deemed appropriate for retention and all required replacement trees which are located on private _ property shall be maintained in a healthy condition by the property owner and shall not be removed except through Administrative SPARC review. SPARC shall require at least a 1:1 replacement but may require more than one replacement depending on the significance of the tree removed'. 3. All aspects of the proposed development plan are subject to review by Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee prior to application for final map including but not limited to architectural, public and private landscaping, hardscape surface treatments, irrigation and fencing. Particular emphasis shall be placed on the following: 9 a. The success with which the landscape plan recreates the grove and windrow which will be lost to the development improvements b. Selection of low maintenance, high canopy trees. C. The location of the proposed soundwall. d. Preservation of adequate yard space if the lots must be re- configured. e:------- �xbdi�in enter} t��aex�- end- s�rbdi�i� ion id�rrtif3e�tio-sigx The Development Program shall be modified to incorporate the following: a. A statement of purpose including a description of the proposed design concept. b. Minimum front yard setbacks as follows: Minimum Front -Yard Lot Numbers 10' 9 13' 8,14 15' 16,18,19 16' 2,5,6,7,10,13,15 18' 1,21 20' 3,4,11,12,17,20 C. e. Minimum rear yard setback of twenty feet except for Lot 9 which will be permitted a minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet. The PUD standards can permit exceptions to the rear yard setback upon recommendation of a certified arborist subject to approval by SPARC if the reduction is necessary to allow the retention of a visually significant or high value tree. The PUD Standards may address D roiec tions into reauired frnnr vnniq fnr nnrrh Standards for construction of additions, permitted detached accessory structures and other improvements (decks, patios, spas etc). 1 10 A minimum side yard setback from Sonoma Mountain Parkway of 30 feet for Lots 15 and 14. City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1992 119 f. Prohibition of garage conversion. g. A minimum driveway depth of 19 feet as measured from the maximum projection of the garage door as it is opened. 5. The PUD development plan shall be modified to state: "No more than 15 building permits may be obtained for new units within this PUD in any calender year unless allocations are granted for the entire PUD." I A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to recommend to the City Council approval of the Subdivision Ordinance Modification C y) allowing use of a single driveway for three of the proposed units based on the findings and Co subject to the one condition listed below: i COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: No COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings ' 1. The Crane Glen PUD permits modifications to the driveway standards in order to minimize the curb cuts and maximize on- street parking. 2. There are special. circumstances affecting the property because the narrowness of the parcel and the location of the access street limit the development options on the site. 3. The modification is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property right of the petitioner to develop his lot in a more logical configuration with a density permitted by the General Plan and specified in the Corona /Ely Specific Plan. 4. Granting of the modification will not be detrimental to the public welfare or safety, or injurious to other property or to the neighborhood but will reduce the points from which people will be backing on the street and reduce conflicts between driveways backing into each other. Condition 1. Cross over easements will be required for Lots 4,5, &6 for access across the driveways. A motion !was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Tentative Map dated March, 1992 based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed below: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: No 11 12® City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes . April 14, 1992 COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings 1. The proposed Tentative map, as conditioned, is in general conformity with the provisions of the General Plan designation for the area. 2. The proposed Tentative map is exempt from the City's Growth Management Plan because the project is less than five acres and less than fifteen lots and no more than fifteen units will be built in any one year. 3. SPARC approval of the development plan will sufficiently address the need for quality design on the site. 4. The project is consistent with the Housing elements policies of promoting a mix of housing types by providing smaller detached lots than the rest of the Corona /Ely area. 5. The proposed Tentative map as conditioned is in general conformity with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The proposed Tentative map as conditioned is in general conformity with the subdivision ordinance. T - The proposed Tentative map as conditioned complies with the policies of the Corona /Ely Specific Plan and addresses the relevant mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact. Report. 8. An Initial Study has been prepared,. the applicant has agreed to the recommended mitigation measures and a. Mitigated Negative Declaration has been, issued to address the vial impact of tree removal not identified in the Corona /Ely Specific Plan EIR. Conditions 1. The map must be revised prior to final map approval to incorporate the Negative Declaration Mitigations and Planned Unit Development plan conditions. 2. After completion of a report by a certified arborist, the Final Map shall show the location of those trees deemed appropriate for preservation. Improvement drawings shall be reviewed by the arborist who shall provide recommendations to allow the retention of the identified trees. 3. No more than 15 building permits for new units shall be granted. in any calender year for lots within this tentative subdivision map unless allocations are granted for all parcels. A statement to this effect shall be included as a note on the Final Map to staffs satisfaction. 4. All landscaping and irrigation systems within the public right -of -way, street tree planting strips and landscape medians shall be maintained by a Landscape Assessment District through contract services, subject to approval of the City 12 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1992 121 Council. Landscaping and irrigation systems within the area shall be designed to standards acceptable to the City of Petaluma. Cost of formation of the required assessment district shall be borne by the project proponent and shall be paid at the time of Final Map Submittal. 5. The final map shall show permitted building envelopes as regulated by the PUD development standards rather than the proposed building footprints shown on the tentative map. 6. Cross over easements will be required for Lots 4, 5, and 6 for access across the driveways. 7. The following requirements from the City Engineer shall be incorporated into the project: a. The developer shall comply with the Petaluma Municipal Code Section 20.36.010 and 20.36.020 which require the developer to pay storm drainage impact fees (as calculated in Chapter 17.30) on construction in all sections of the City of Petaluma. b. I This development shall comply with all recommendations as stated in the soils report for this project. C. If positive lot drainage cannot be obtained, than all backyard drainage control shall be within an underground pipe system with surface catchment swales and inlets. d.. A private storm drain maintenance agreement between lots served by this system 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. e. All street lights within this development shall have standard metal fixtures dedicated to the City for ownership and maintenance. Prior to City acceptance, the developer shall verify all lights meet PG &E's LS2 rating system. f. Water pressure calculations shall be required for this development verifying the system adequacy for fire flows and domestic service. (This item shall be verified concurrent with improvement plan review). g. A 10' PUE shall be dedicated adjacent to the public right -of -way as required by the utility companies. h. This development shall be required to contribute to the City's Major Traffic Facilities fee. i. The applicant shall be responsible for removing the existing driveway and replacing the curb and concrete bicycle lane (on Sonoma Mountain ParkwU) to match the existing. j. Signing and striping shall conform to City standards. 13 t .r _...- ._�.._.- ..._._ �.,.- .__- _........ �..,r,.,R.........._._. _._._. _. __ 122 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1992 8. The following requirements of the City Building Inspector shall be incorporated into the project prior to issuance of building permits: a. Grading must be certified when completed to indicate compliance with approved plans and will be required for occupancy. b. Soils with expansion index greater than 20 requires special design foundation per Uniform Building Code 2904(b). C. Residential Buildings over 3,000 square feet need two required exits. d. Indicate all utilities on site plan. e. Responsible party to sign plans. f. Submit soils report to foundation design. g. Detail. all swales. h. Detail all fences. 9. The following requirements shall be incorporated into the project to the satisfaction of the City Fire Marshal: a. All roofing material shall have class "B" rating or better, treated in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 32.7. b... All roof covering. materials applied as exterior wall covering shall have a fire rating of class "B', treated in accordance with UBC Standard 32 -7, as per ordinance 1744 City of Petaluma.. C. Provide fire suppression system at normal sources of ignition. These. areas are specifically at cloths dryers, kitchen stoves, furnaces,. water heaters, fireplaces and in attic areas at vents and chimneys for these appliances and equipment. d. Post address at or near main entry door - Minimum two inch letters. 10. The following condition of the Police Department shall be incorporated into the project: a. The addresses on these homes shall be illuminated. visi roll ri III. McBAIL,.GLEN BROOK NORTH SUBDIVISION, ELY ROAD, AP NO.'S 137 -070- 06, 07, 08, 10 AND 11, FILE NO. TSM91010(tp). 1. Consideration of revised plans and direction to the applicant. 2. Continuance to April 28, 1992 for: a. Consideration of Amendment to Development Agreement. b. Consideration of Rezone from PCD to PUD. 14 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1992 C. Consideration of Unit Development Plan. d. Consideration of Tentative Map for 175 detached single - family lots and 8.4 acres of high density residential development. (Item continued from March 24, 1992) The public hearing was continued. SPEAKERS: Jim McCann presented the staff report. Commissioner Bennett - Concerns regarding traffic on Ely with all new development in area. I CO Allan Til - City Traffic Engineer - Discussion of traffic projections in area. Commissioner Libarle - Voiced concerns regarding traffic congestion. Pamela tuft - Access and cross - section for Ely needs to be reviewed if Commission feels four lanes are needed. Commissioner Parkerson - Transition of Sonoma Mountain Parkway to Ely needs to be considered regarding pedestrian access. Commissioner Bennett - Would rather see homes fronting onto major arterial than backing onto arterial (in regard to noise). Mike Gailagher - Project Applicant - Distributed letter regarding issues discussed in staff report; back -on treatment is preferable (with landscaping buffers proposed); need Commission direction; what should be done on the north side of the creek ?; objected to concept of feathering density. Commissioner Rahman - Traffic (safety of children walking to school) is a concern with staffs plan - prefers McBail plan over staff's. Commissioner Tarr - suggested frontage road . with landscaped buffer between. (Four Commissioners preferred continuous back -on treatment along Ely Road over staff- proposed alternative showing side -on treatment and cul -de -sac. The public hearing was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 28. IV. GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT, CITY OF PETALUMA (ikt). 1. Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Consideration of additional bus route. 3.. Consideration of certification of all Golden Gate Transit buses. (This item was discussed as Item No. 1). The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Jim McCann presented the staff report.. Commissioner Rahman - Why is staff recommending that the stop at St. Francis be eliminated? Allan Tilton - City Traffic Engineer - There is no sidewalk at that location. Ron Trellic - Representative of East Petaluma Commuter Club - 1557 Creekside - would like Ely -area routes be emphasized; presented letters in support. 15 123 124 City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1992 Warren Potts - Superintendent of scheduling for Golden Gate Transit; answered questions regarding timing of route changes. Commissioner Rahman - Is St. Francis stop only a drop - off? Are these additional buses or are they being. diverted from other routes? Warren Potts _ Yes, St. Francis will only be a drop -off. These are additional buses. Commissioner Rahman - Good - when will start date be? As early as July 1st? Warren Potts - July is a possibility, but not a sure schedule. Commissioner Parkerson - Speaks in support of bus services. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to recommend to the City Council issuance of a negative declaration based on the findings listed below: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings 1. The proposed bus route #86 and stops do not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. 2. The proposed bus route #86 and stops, as conditionally approved, do not have the potential to achieve short -term goals to the disadvantage of long -term goals. 3. The proposed bus route #86 and stops, as conditionally approved, do not have possible environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Thompson to recommend to the City Council the granting of a bus certificate based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions listed below: COMMISSIONER NELSON: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Yes CHAIRMAN LIBARLE: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings 1. The proposed bus route #86 and stops, subject to the. following conditions, will conform to the intent of the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. 2. The proposed bus route #86 and stops, subject to the following conditions, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare or the community. M _ ---- City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1992 125 3. Golden Gate Transit shall be exempt from the requirement to pay gross receipts and post a bond as required by Petaluma Municipal Code, Section 14.12.080 and 14.12.090, since they are not operating the bus route in the City but through the City, and they are a public agency. Conditions 1. No additional bus stops shall be created without further application and review; stops are limited at this time to those shown in Exhibit X with the exception that Golden Gate Transit may provide a northbound and southbound stop at both the El /proposed Santa Rosa JC, and Ely Road /Sonoma Mountain Parkway, and except as permitted in condition 6. c CO 2. No buses /routes shall be added without further application or review; Golden Gate Transit shall be limited to the requested six (6) buses for the morning commute, six (6) buses for the afternoon commute. 3. To reduce the noise and emissions, dwell time (idling time) shall be limited to 3 minutes per stop, except as necessary to accommodate handicapped riders. 4. Hours of operation through the City shall be limited to 5:00 AM through 8:00 AM, and 4:20 PM through 7:30 PM. 5. Golden Gate Transit shall provide bus stop signs and poles at all transit stops not already marked. For any proposed stops that would be joint bus stops with Petaluma Transit and /or Sonoma County Transit, the sign /pole design and placement must be coordinated with Sonoma County Coordinating Committee, subject to final approval by the City Transit Coordinator. - rout tle—bus maul €ield at- St- RFanc4s- -&ball -be eli�ina ted un- til- �t}cl� -- time- a�- pede�ian -i - ��urents -uF�- made subj�e�- to- -sta€€ ��vfewa�l- uppr��al: 6.7 Additional stops are recommended (and are approved should Golden Gate Transit decide to utilize them)' both northbound and southbound routes at Ely Road /Sonoma Mountain Parkway, and Sonoma Mountain Parkway at future Santa Rosa Junior College site, subject to staff review and approval. 7.8: Any future plans for bus shelters, turnouts shall be reviewed by SPARC. V. CYPRESS BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, RANCHO ARROYO BUSINESS PARK, OFF INDUSTRIAL AVENUE, FILE NO. REZ92003(hg). 1. Consider finding of exemption from environmental review. 2. Consideration of amendment to Rancho Arroyo Business Park P.C.D. Zoning District Standards. This item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 28 by request of the applicant. ADJOURNMENT 10:40 PM. min0414 / pcmin -6 17