Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/11/1992217 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: Absent: Parkerson* August 11, 1992 7:00 P.M. PETALUMA, CA ett* *, Read, Rahman, Tarr, Thompson STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director James McCann, Principal Planner Bonne Gaebler, Assoerate Planner Dede Dolan, Assistant Planner Jane Thomson, Sr. Pl�nning Technician Hans Grunt, Planning Technician * Chairman * * Vice Chairman MINUTES OF July 28, 1992 were approved as printed. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None.. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: N CORRESPONDENCE: Three lettej APPEAL 'STATEMENT: Was read. LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMEN1 regarding Hovdesven Variance request. Was noted on agenda. CONSENT AGENDA No items. I. MCBLAIN, 613 I STREET, , 1. Consideration of CE( 2. Consideration of V, garage to encroach in The public hearing was opened. NO. 008-231-18, FILE NO. VAR92007(hg).. .. Exemption. ince request to authorize an illegally constructed side- and rear yard setbacks. 1 218 Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 1992 SPEAKERS: Jim McCann presented the staff report. Robert. Debra McBlain - described project; unfortunate that work was done without benefit of a building permit. Commissioner Read - Cannot make necessary Variance findings. Commissioner Rahman - If variance is granted on this - all neighbors would have the same rights cannot make required findings for a Variance. Commissioner Thompson - Doesn't like people to have 'to remove buildings. Commissioner Bennett - Everyone is ignoring the fact that building permits are needed - would like the City to take a pro- actve_.stance - i.e. request lumber yards to distribute information regarding necessity for building permit when materials are purchased. Planning Director Tuft - Will talk to Public Information Officer. Bonnie Bard; contact local lumber yards, newspapers, etc. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to find that this project is exempt from CEQA and to deny the variance request based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes COMMISSIONER PARKERSON: Absent COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: No - COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings 1. Find the detached garage to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15303(e), construction of small structures; and 2. Deny the request for a Variance to allow a 12" side yard setback and a 13" rear yard setback for an. existing 20' X 22', single story, detached garage at 613 '`I" Street based on the following findings: a. There are no peculiar and unusual conditions inherent to the property in question sufficient to cause a hardship, that the lot in question is typical to those within the neighborhood. b. No hardship peculiar to the subject property exists. C. Such. a. Variance -is not necessary for the= preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other- properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity, and. that a Variance, if granted, would. constitute a special: privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by neighbors. d. The authorizing of such . Variance would be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and would materially impair the purpose of this ordinance and the public interest. Planning .Commission Minutes 3. Require the owner to obta: garage per the Uniform E Petaluma Zoning Ordinanc 4. Direct staff to proceed wi owner to legalize the garag( August 11, 1992 a building permit to modify and legalize the detached ilding Codes, the Petaluma Municipal Code and the and abatement action should steps not be taken by the NEW BUSINESS PUBLW HEARINGS 0 II. WAYNE HOVDESVEN, VAR92009akt). 1. Consideration of Vdri addition and encroaciin The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Jane Thomson - Presented staff rep Commissioner Tarr - Was present c Commissioner Read - Could the were in effect when this addition w, legalizing, this using a Variance. Commissioner Rahman Cannot to Joyce and Wayne Hovdesven - Apf purchased, requested approval oft, Commissioner Bennett - Can mak this home'in good faith many years Commissioner Read - This home problems could possibly find requi Commissioner Tarr - Cannot make The public hearing was closed. GLENWOOD, AP NO. 005 - 132 -19, FILE NO. request to authorize an illegally constructed into the rear yard setback. told of illegal status of addition prior to purchase? lg. Ordinance be researched to see what setbacks ilt to see what setbacks were at that time? Trouble a hard -line on this one. cants - was not aware of illegal status when home was the Variance findings because applicants purchased purchased in good faith with no knowledge of any findings. aired findings for Variance. A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Read to grant the variance request based on the following findings: COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes CHAIRMAN PARKERSOM, Absent COMMISSIONER,THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER-TARR:. No Findings: 1. The family room addition to be exempt from CEQA under Section 15303(e), construction of small structu ;es; and 2. There are peculiar and unusual conditions inherent in the property in question sufficient to cause a hardship. limm 3 220 Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 1992 3. There is a hardship peculiar to the property existing. 4. Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would_ not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. 5. The authorizing of such variance may not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. 6. Require the owner to obtain a building- permit to modify arid. legalize the family room addition per the Uniform Building Codes, the Petaluma Municipal Code, and the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance; and 7. Direct staff to proceed with abatement action should steps not be taken by the owner to legalize the family room. III. EDEN HOUSING, CORONA RANCH, SONOMA MOUNTAIN PARKWAY AT ELY ROAD, AP NO. 137 - 060 -59, FILE NO. REZ92010(dd). 1. Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Consideration of a Variance request to allow 158 parking spaces where 200 are required. 3. Consideration of a Rezoning. from PCD to PUD. 4. Consideration of a Planned Unit Development Plan and PUD Standards. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Bonne. Gaebler and Dede Dolan presented the staff report. Commissioner Thompson Will this be surrounded by soundwalls? Dede Dolan - -No soundwall only along Sonoma. Mountain Parkway. Commissioner Thompson - Will the new road come off of Ely? Dede Dolan Yes. Commissioner Tarr - Requested review of driveway cuts; questions regarding proposed Administrative Variance. Planning Director Tuft - Answered questions regarding Variance request. Commissioner Rahman - If there is a problem with parking Variance, would this impact the project? Dede Dolan Yes, it probably would. Planning; Director Tuft Lower income rental unim do not provide the minimum requirements for parking. -- studies have shown that these types of units do not generate the need, for�as many parking spaces as market: rate, units. Warren Seeto - Eden Housing (applicant) - Staff: has been very (Dede Dolan and Bonne Gaebler) - in- terms of use. of project - , parking requirements should be much less than for a project of market -rate homes. Commissioner Thompson - Could some of these parking areas. not expected to be needed be kept as landscaped area? Planning - Director Tuft - (Asked of Eden Housing) Are there any provisions in the lease which would restrict the number of vehicles kept on -site by each owner? (Answer - no.) Commissioner Read Does Eden Housing agree with all of the conditions? 0 Planning ommission Minutes 221 g August 11, 1992 1. On the basis of the concli report prepared for the C Study prepared for the Coi the. project, as mitigated, wi 2. An Initial Study has been potential for this project cumulatively -- on wildlife r animals, birds, plants, fiE including the habitat upon (Section 711.2, Fish and Ga ications as noted. only one with problems with parking, I won't object; a lease restriction is a good one. ms with amount of parking required. will be placed in the lease agreement. If Commission pecified Standards" of the parking standards of the riance to address this project's specific needs. ier Rahman and seconded by Commissioner Thompson ;il adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of f the Rezoning from Planned Community District to ✓al of the PUD Development Plan consisting of a site )e and elevations and written development standards, subject to the following amended conditions: es ion of the previously certified Environmental Impact rona /Ely Specific. Plan, and the supplemental Initial ria Ranch project, there is no substantial evidence that. have a significant effect on the environment. )nducted by this lead agency which has evaluated the cause an adverse effect -- either individually or ources. For this purpose, wildlife is defined as "all wild amphibians, and related ecological communities, 1hich the wildlife depends for its continued viability." e Code). 3. There is no evidence that the proposed project would have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources because the site is virtually surrounded by urban construction sites and does not support any wildlife resources. Mitigations Measures 1. All applicable mitigation. measures of the Corona /Ely Specific Plan EIR shall be respected. 2. The project shall be subject 3. The project drainage impr Agency (SCWA) design cril to project construction. storm drain impact fees. :ments must be designed to Sonoma County Water a and must be approved by the City and SCWA prior 5 Warren Seeto - Yes, with the modii Commissioner Tarr - If I am the Director Tuft's suggestion regardin Commissioner Bennett - No proble Director Tuft - A lease restriction prefers, staff will utilize the "Un! Zoning Ordinance rather than a Vz Commission - Agreed with above: The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioi co to recommend to the City Coun Cf) Environmental Impact, approval c Planned Unit Development, appro plan, land use circulation, landsca Z based on'the following findings and COMMIS OMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Y( COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yc CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Absi COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings For Negative Declaration 1. On the basis of the concli report prepared for the C Study prepared for the Coi the. project, as mitigated, wi 2. An Initial Study has been potential for this project cumulatively -- on wildlife r animals, birds, plants, fiE including the habitat upon (Section 711.2, Fish and Ga ications as noted. only one with problems with parking, I won't object; a lease restriction is a good one. ms with amount of parking required. will be placed in the lease agreement. If Commission pecified Standards" of the parking standards of the riance to address this project's specific needs. ier Rahman and seconded by Commissioner Thompson ;il adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of f the Rezoning from Planned Community District to ✓al of the PUD Development Plan consisting of a site )e and elevations and written development standards, subject to the following amended conditions: es ion of the previously certified Environmental Impact rona /Ely Specific. Plan, and the supplemental Initial ria Ranch project, there is no substantial evidence that. have a significant effect on the environment. )nducted by this lead agency which has evaluated the cause an adverse effect -- either individually or ources. For this purpose, wildlife is defined as "all wild amphibians, and related ecological communities, 1hich the wildlife depends for its continued viability." e Code). 3. There is no evidence that the proposed project would have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources because the site is virtually surrounded by urban construction sites and does not support any wildlife resources. Mitigations Measures 1. All applicable mitigation. measures of the Corona /Ely Specific Plan EIR shall be respected. 2. The project shall be subject 3. The project drainage impr Agency (SCWA) design cril to project construction. storm drain impact fees. :ments must be designed to Sonoma County Water a and must be approved by the City and SCWA prior 5 222 Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 1992 4. The project developer will be responsible for providing on -site water delivery systems and loop connections and for contributing a fair share towards construction of Pressure IV Improvements if this water zone serves the site. 5. The developer will be required to pay the City's standard water connection fee. 6. The developer will be responsible for the cost of extending new sewer lines into the project from the new common main. 7. The developer will be responsible for paying City connection fees towards the cost of cumulative collection and treatment facilities. 8. The developer will be responsible for paying school impact fees to help offset the cost of new and expanded school facilities necessitated by the project. 9. All landscaping in the public right -of -way shall be placed in an existing Landscape Assessment District (LAD) or one shall be created for the project. 10. Cars in the parking lot shall be screened with landscaping or a soundwall. 11. The project will be subject to Park and Recreation fees.. �2: - - -- -fie- applicant- 11- agFee -��- }day -tbei� fair �l�are- €o�- i�rpr ©ve�r}ts- e�st�e��d -b} the - Cyr ©nafl ly- Speed- Assessment- �3i�tFi�t- X24 - ==I }s- metl}od - ©€ payment - &ha4-�be thFOgl��ne€ i€- asm�distries- appFOVeby- tbe- I?etal�rx�rr- C ©uHe 13. The project shall be subject to traffic mitigation fees. 14. The project developer will be responsible for the installation of the noise barrier along Sonoma.Mountain Parkway in conformance with Sonoma Mountain Parkway Design Guidelines. 15. A soil investigation shall be performed for the project to develop preliminary recommendations for site preparation and grading, foundation and soil engineering design, and preliminary pavement designs. 16. A construction period erosion control plan must be submitted, including construction scheduling measures to reduce erosion and 'sedimentation and appropriate seasonal maintenance, in accordance with the City's erosion control ordinance. 17. Potentials for damage caused by soil expansion and contraction, should be mitigated through routine engineering methods such as soil treatment, over-excavation and replacement of expansive soils, use of geotextiles, and use of support floors. 18. Routine. seismic parameters shall be incorporated in the design and construction of foundations and structures.. 19. The project developer shall implement construction period dust control measures such as:- water sprinkling, proper scheduling of major dust generating activities, and storage pile covering. � . � � x Y > �, * 3�4F'1'f } A�._;; t�_r �sF"''F,_ 4 7 r a� 7�2, yF ...1 T� R °� ?i.. J a� �rvrc�+r+v .a � e ..^i � 'vq � ,.F- a.+rni°�°t„3�•.m ^ y _ y ' _ Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 1992 223 Findings For Rezone The proposed Corona and objectives of the C PUD, as conditioned, is in compliance with the g oals Plan and the Corona /Ely Specific Plan. 2. The development plan, as 6onditioned, results in a more desirable use of the land and a better physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning district by providing affordable units in a creative design. 3. The plan for the proposed development, as conditioned, presents a unified and organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to nearby properties, and adequate landscaping and screening will be reviewed by SPARC to insut e compatibility. 4. The development of the Corona Ranch project, in the manner proposed by the applicant, will not be detrimental to the public welfare but will provide much needed affordable housing, 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 tPe proposed PUD plan, as conditioned, has been found to have suitable relationship to the adjacent circulations system as conditioned. Cumulative traffic impacts from the development of the Corona /Ely area have been addressed and mitigated though the implementation of the Corona /Ely Specific Plan. 6. The development of the su ject property, in the manner proposed by the applicant and conditionally approved, shall continue to provide affordable housing for families, as required by the Attachments to the grant deed. Findings For PUD 1. Tle proposed Corona Ranch PUD, as conditioned, is in compliance with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Corona /Ely Specific Plan. 2. The development plan, as conditioned, results in a more desirable use of the land and a better physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning district by providing affordable units in a creative design. 3. The plan for the proposed development, as conditioned, presents a unified and organized arrangement of �uildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation. to nearby properties, and adequate landscaping and screening will be reviewed by SPARC to msu e compatibility. 4. The development of the r n Ranch h m anner p C,o o a project, m t he proposed by the applicant, will not be detr mental to the - public welfare but will provide much needed affordable housing, fiwill 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 Pfan of the City of Petaluma. 5. The circulation pattern of to . have suitable relations Cumulative traffic impacts ie proposed PUD plan, as conditioned, has been found p to the adjacent circulations system as conditioned. om the development of the Corona /Ely area have been 7 224 Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 1992 addressed and mitigated through the implementation of the Corona /Ely Specific Plan. 6. The development of'the subject property in the manner proposed by the applicant and conditionally approved, shall continue to provide affordable housing for families, as required by the Attachments to the grant deed. Conditions For PUD 1. The applicant shall comply with the following conditions of the Planning Department: a. The plan shall be revised to allow for a continuation of the. sidewalk on the east side of the unnamed future road to Sonoma Mountain Parkway. b. The landscaping plan shall be revised to :include the remaining area between Delco property and the driveway. This area shall be landscaped and maintained by the owners of the apartment complex. C. SPARC review of the proposed project shall place emphasis on the following: 1. Compliance with the Design Guidelines established for the Central Area of the Corona /Ely Specific Plan. 2. Easy access to common areas from the units. 3. Effectiveness of sound wall and landscaping plan . in screening view of the-cars in the parking lot from the street by utilizing a. small berm or some other landscape screen. 4. Special treatment at the termination points of the soundwall. 5. Use of quality building and paving materials. 6. Design and location of accessory structures, including any play structures and trash enclosures. d. The project sponsor shall execute all necessary agreements with the City of Petaluma insuring that the occupancy of the units shall be exclusively for very low and low income families, per the requirements outlined in the Attachments to the Grant Deed when the site is transferred from the City to Eden Housing. 2.. The applicant shall comply with. the following conditions of the: Engineering Department: a.. A 10 foot Public Utilities Easement (PUE) shall be dedicated adjacent to Ely Road and the new unnamed road. b. The on -site sanitary sewer, water systems, fire hydrants and storm drainage systems within the apartment complex shall be private and maintained by the owners of the apartment. Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 1992 225 C. The sanitary sewer and storm drain within the townhome units shall be private and maintained by the homeowners association. d. Individual water meters to service the condominium units shall be installed within the right -of -way of the unnamed street in accordance with City Standards. e. The driveways in th6 vicinity of Buildings 4 off the unnamed road and building 8 off Ely Road shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide to accommodate emergency vehicular access and two -way traffic with a structural street section adequate to h ndle a fire truck. f. The width and radius of the driveway off the unnamed road in the vicinity of (j Building 3 shall be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles and traffic subject to approval by the City Traffic Engineer. g. A one foot non - access easement shall be required along Sonoma Mountain Parkway along the frontage of the property, except for the area to be used for bicycle and pedestrian access. lr: - - - -' Ike- en- t�vays-- tc�-- Bx�ldir�g- S- ��1�- be- �r�er�ed- �award�- tl�- i�teFia� - ©€ -the a�Ftmerft e�pl�x ��t�e�- €ham- €�} -R- oaf- sQ- as- t © -nvdi� potefft -ice € - paring 3. ' I i. The underground uti�ities within the unnamed roadway shall be sized to accommodate Ranch and the Sonoma Glen developments. j. The developer shall install a water main system with two sources of feed along Ely Road, Sonoma Mountain Parkway and. within the unnamed road. This main shall be s�zed to serve both domestic, irrigation, and fire flow requirements for Corona Ranch and future Sonoma Glen developments. k. The unnamed roadway shall be dedicated to the City concurrent with approval of the street improvements by the City Council. 1. A stop sign shall be required on the unnamed street and its intersection with Ely Road. M. All street lights shall have standard Corona /Ely metal fixtures dedicated to the City for ownership and maintenance. Prior to City acceptance, the developer shall verify ownership all lights meet PG &E's LS2 rating system. n. Signing and striping stall conform to City standards, or as approved by City staff. o. The primary driveway onto Ely Road- shall be: moved approximately 30 -50' toward Sonoma Mountain Parkway. A minimum separation of 250' between the driveway and Sonoma Mountain Parkway shall be maintained. The applicant shall comply wi the following conditions of the Fire Department: a. Provide fire extin the Fire Marshal. 2 A rated A B C dry chemical type as required by , 0 .- 226 Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 1992 b. Buildings 3,500 sq. ft. and larger shall be protected by an automatic fire extinguishing system as required by Section 10.306A of the 1988 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code. C. Permit required from Fire Marshal's office for sprinkler system alteration prior to work being started. Two sets of plans are required. d. Provide fire hydrants as required by the Fire Marshal's office. Five (5) fire hydrants required for project. e. Provide smoke detectors in all units on separate circuits with visual alarm device installed above or near main entry door. f. Provide electrical conduit from post indicator valve to alarm_ panel location for tamper switch as underground is being installed. g. Check valve in Fire Department connection to be installed above grade. h. Two -inch clearance shall be provided around fire sprinkler lateral and riser at foundation and floor slab. i. Barricades shall be provided to protect gas meters from vehicular traffic impact. j. Provide. exit lights over or near all required exits. k. Provide emergency lighting in all public areas and at or near all required exits. 1. All emergency lighting,, exit lights shall have two separate sources of power as required in the Building Code. M. Exiting: exit ways, exit doors shall conform to 1988 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code and the 1991 Uniform Building Code. n. All roofing material shall have a class "B" rating or better, treated in" accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 32.7. o. Provide graphic annunciator fire alarm panel at entrances to project. p. The long dead -end streets as shown. do not provide adequate emergency apparatus access, circulation and exit. Both streets should connect to provide circulation and access /exit from two points. q. The applicant shall submit details of grass -cel covered berm for emergency exit for approval by the Fire Marshal. The berm must support 20 tons. r. Bollards shall not be installed in the emergency exit onto Ely Road. 4. The applicant. shall comply with the following conditions of the Water Department:. a. A master meter for domestic water shall be installed for the rental units. 10 1 u M .� -..t.l ._. : r .. .._ _, .. �.,.e_,,.._s_ ... _. _.. .:'._ .. .. t. .. ._. _. .. —...� :r[+i.:Y: ♦. . .ham _ _.— .s. .. �.., Planning` Commission Minutes ral C. August 11, 1992 227 Install, in accord'ande . with City Standards, a detector check valve at the property line for a fire service line. Any fees waived for sewer and water shall be budgeted for and paid to the enterprise funds out of the project. 5. A restriction regarding n agreement to assure that a City staff review and appro of vehicles per unit shall be placed in the lease cm of 25 guest parking spaces are provided, subject to LIAISON REPORTS CO River Enhancement Committee - River Enhancement Committee fi - they are! extensive, exciting. z SPARC = -Commissioner Bennett be SPARC representative. Tree Committee - Commissioner 1 - Committee is looking at the Si public property. 1 mmissioner Bennett gave a brief background on the ions; the enhancement plans are now being presented ted that Commissioner Parkerson will continue to At indicated that Ross Parkerson was the Chairman Tree List and Standards for trimming of trees on PROJECT STATUS This will be a regular agenda item - there is nothing for this meeting. ADJOURNMENT 8:45 PM min0811 / pcom2l 11