Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/09/1992236 Planning Commission Minutes REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL September 9, 1992 7 :00 P.M. PETALUMA, CA COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bennett, Read, Parkerson *, Rahman, Tarr (Arrived at 8:15 PM), Thompson, Torliatt STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director James McCann, Principal Planner Dede Dolan, Assistant Planner Jane Thomson, Sr. Planning Technician * Chairman MINUTES OF August 25 were approved as printed. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Marsh Enhancement Plan accepted last night by City Council - much thanks to Kurt Yeiter. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Parkerson would like Planning Commission to review Discussion format of SPARC Minutes. CORRESPONDENCE: Letter regarding Stevick appeal; memo from Planning Director Tuft regarding density calculations for Country Club Estates. APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read. LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA Items recommended for consideration under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine in nature by staff and are recommended to be acted upon by a single motion by the Planning Commission at the beginning of the meeting with no further discussion. The item may, however, be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion in its normal order on the agenda by the applicant, a Commissioner, or an interested member of the public by a simple request. OLD BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS I. LEONARD JAY ENTERPRISES, COUNTRY CLUB ESTATES, COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AND MCNEAR AVENUE, AP NO. 008 - 472 -07, 10, FILE NO.'s REZ92006, TSM92002(dd). 1. Continued consideration of Draft Initial Study /proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts of a proposed Rezoning to PUD, O d a 1 c ,, Planning Commission Minutes Planned Unit Deg Tentative Subdivisi September 9, 1992 t Plan for 49 custom home lots and a related The public hearing was continued from the August 25, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. SPEAKERS: C� Planning Director Tuft - outlined sloe /hillside calculation for the project. Dede Dolan - presented the staff deport - the public noticing period will extend through October 5'. Commissioner Bennett - Will native tree planting cause views to be blocked by new home owners? Dede Dolan - Spacing of trees will be looked at. Planning Director Tuft - Described �iew corridors to be provided; deed restrictions to allow for recognition of view corridors, screening with trees. Commissioner Parkerson - What is future ';use of land on 8.6 acre site? Is there a contradiction? Most trees are in that area. Dede Dolan - Woodland Management Plan calls for selective thinning in this 8.6 acre area. Commissioner Parkerson - Commissioners shoiuld walk the site. Commissioner Thompson - Noise concerns - are construction noises the concern? (Answer, yes). Commissioner Parkerson - Concerns with preservation of oaks, including the young trees. Commissioner Read - Questions /concerns with Traffic Engineer's memo. Allan Tilton - City Traffic Engineer - Answered questions. Commissioner Torliatt - Is golf cour e outside .of City Limits? (Answer, yes). Ernie Pope - 1032 Country Club rive - Petition of 77 taxpayers in opposition to this project - is this being considered? Is City Attorney still reviewing CC &R's? _Planning Director Tuft - Yes, the p tition is a part of the public record. The CC &R's will be reviewed by City Attorney and a %port from him included in the 9/22 report. Ernie Pope - Wants to make sure co cerns regarding oaks and traffic safety are duly noted. Commissioner Rahman - Can City Attorney be in attendance at the next meeting? Planning Director Tuft - Yes, if Plammng Commission requests City Attorney's presence, he can be at meeting; CC &R question is s not an environmental matter. Commissioner Rahman - It might be better to have attorney present. Commissioner Parkerson - A report rom the Attorney will probably be enough. Bob Olikei - Homeowner's Association Attorney - CC &R's mandate any new phases join Homeowner's Association; City Attorneys position is very important because of lot size; concerns with Water (Section 3 -A) increase in runoff, storm drains are maintained and paid for by Homeowner's Association - what Jmpacts will this have ?; Natural Resources (Section 9 =A), Deed Restriction (Section 9 -C) - Open Space /Deed Restrictions should be clarified and not changed; who will own the open space ?; Transportation /Circulation - 71 new homes should require an EIR to determine a total impact; Fire Access /Hazards - Street is not to City Standards as proposed - issue as to secondary access; Overall Environmental Concerns Traffic Concerns Mr. Oliker promised to supply a memo outlining above concerns tomorrow, 9/10/92. Commissioner Bennett -Can staff give responses to the above at the next meeting? Planning Director Tuft - Yes, all concerns will be responded to at next meeting. Leonard Jav - Developer - Presented a slide show and described the project. Mary Beth Pope - 1032 Country Club Drive - Traffic concerns; there is already substantial traffic in this area; McNear should be included in a Traffic Study; concerns regarding lack of access routes; more extensive traffic study of this area should be undertaken. 2 237 238 Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1992 John Siragusa - 14 Bear Creek Court - home is at the end of Bear Creek, next to oak grove and seasonal creek which overflows during rainy season; concerns with ravine /creek runoff; Fire /Police access concerns; Fire Marshal should be consulted. Commissioner Parkerson - All comments made. tonight will be responded, to at the September 22 meeting. Planning Director Tuft - Invited anyone interested to call or come in for information. The public hearing was continued to the September 22 Planning Commission meeting. NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS II. EDEN HOUSING, CORONA RANCH,, SONOMA MOUNTAIN PARKWAY AT ELY ROAD, AP NO. 137- 060 -59, FILE NO. TSM92004(dd). Consideration of proposed Tentative Map to subdivide a 5.15 acre site into 16 condominium units and one multi- family lot. (Note:' Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project at their August 11, 1992 meeting). The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Dede Dolan presented the staff report. Warren.Seeto - Project architect - Thanked staff, offered to answer questions. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Torliatt to recommend that the City Council authorize the City Manager to sign the Tentative Map on behalf of the City, to recommend that the City Council authorize the City Manager to proceed with a lot line adjustment to accept the land from Sonoma Parkway Company, and to recommend to the City Council conditional approval of the Tentative Map based on the findings and subject to the amended conditions as follow: COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings 1. The project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City Council has approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts by Resolution No. 92 upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. 2. - The project complies with the City's subdivision requirements and the Subdivision Map Act. 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1992 Conditions 1. The developer shall be responsible for complying with all mitigations and conditions of approval as stated in City Council Resolution No's 92- ; and 92- approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the P anned Unit Plan and written PUD standards. 2. The land needed for the off -site road shall be granted to the City by Sonoma Parkway Company prior to recordation of the final map. C0 3. The strip of land which touches the Sonoma Mountain Parkway right -of -way, which CO is ineeded for Corona Ranch's southernmost driveway and the adjacent landscape CO buffer, shall be granted to the City prior to recordation of the final map. This may be, done through a lot line adjustment procedure as is proposed on the. tentative map. The developer shall be responsible for submitting the necessary lot line adjustment application paper work to complete this lot line adjustment in a timely manner before the submittal) of the final map. 4. A'public access easement sl all be granted along the driveway through the Corona Ely project to Sonoma Mountain Parkway for pedestrian and bicycle access subject to ;approval by staff prior to final map approval or prior to transfer of the property from the City of Petaluma t Eden Housing. 5. The public improvements ' hull include a point for bicycle access through this easement to the bike _lane along Sonoma Mountain Parkway subject to review and approval by staff prior to final map approval. These improvements shall be designed to direct bicycle traffic to turn. right with the flow of automobile traffic subject to review and approval by staff prior to final map approval. 6. An easement for emergency vehicle access shall be provided through the Corona Ranch project for recordation with the final map. 7. The CC &R's for the condominium project shall be subject to review and approval by City Staff prior to final map approval. 8. The applicant shall submit a name for the unnamed road for approval by the street naming committee prior to approval of the final map. 9. The view applicant shall be responsible for adhering to the conditions of tentative map approval of the City Enjineer as follows: a. The sanitary sewer main from Sonoma Mountain Parkway into the apartment complex, along with its westerly extension in the vicinity of Building 3, then extended northerly in the private driveway and continuing within the off -site street shall be City owned and maintained. That portion of the above described sewer located within the apartment complex and private driveway shall be contained within an exclusive 10 feet paved easement dedicated to the City. All other sanitary sewers within this development shall be private and maintained by the apartment complex. b. The storm drain from Sonoma Mountain Parkway into the apartment complex along with its westerly extension to the private driveway and within the private driveway and off -site street shall be publicly owned and 239 0 240 Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1992 maintained. That portion of the above described storm drain located within the apartment complex and private driveway shall be contained within an exclusive 10 foot easement dedicated to the City. All other. storm drainage systems within the apartment complex shall be private and maintained by the apartment complex and Lots 1 through 16 inclusive as specified in Item #4. C. A crossover access easement shall be required for the private driveway /parking area serving both the apartment and Lots 1 through 16 inclusive. d. A private driveway /parking lot and storm drain maintenance agreement between the apartment complex and Lots 1 through 16 inclusive served by these improvements shall be submitted in a recordable .form. This agreement shall also specify timing of maintenance and be in. a form acceptable to the City staff, and recorded concurrent with the final map. e. Sanitary sewer and water service for Lots 1 through 16 inclusive shall be off the utility mains located within the unnamed street. f. The water main within this development shall be private and maintained by the apartment complex.. g. The Sonoma Mountain Parkway right -of -way dedication, the lot line adjustment /private driveway improvement, off -site street dedication and improvement and' Ely Road improvement shall be completed prior to Certificate of Occupancy for any for sale unit of the apartment complex. h. An exclusive 10 foot water main easement shall be dedicated within the private driveway from the cul -de -sac bulb to Sonoma Mountain Parkway for a possible future main extension to the water line located in Sonoma Mountain Parkway. i. An easement for public /emergency vehicular access shall be, granted over the private driveway from the cul -de -sac to Sonoma Mountain Parkway. j. The private driveway from the cul -de -sac to its entrance into the apartment complex shall be have structural sections built to City Standards and maintained by the apartment complex. k. This development shall comply with all recommendations as stated in the soils report for this project. 1. All grading and erosion control shall conform .to the City's Erosion Control Ordinance 15.76. PLANNING MATTERS III. STEVICK, 511 -1/2 "G" STREET, AP NO. 008 - 261 -09, FILE NO. APL92004Qkt). 1. Consideration of appeal of administrative decision that an illegal addition -- not project into the required 5 foot side yard setback for a residence at 511- 1/2 G Street. 1 � 5 Planning, Commission Minutes September 9, 1992 DISCUSSION: Mel port. dition built before the current owner bought the Commissioner Rahman - Asked for clarification regarding building codes. Planning 'Director Tuft - Building codes are different from Planning requirements. _Jane Thompson presented the staff Commissioner Read - Was this , property? (Answer, yes.) (gave erty - Property owner - Other buildings in area are very close to property lines les); on real estate disclosure, previous owner stated there were ts; described addition; there are no openings in the building facing door; offered to build new fence between properties; painted building. actor Tuft - How will you maintain the property? - I believe there is enough room to maintain addition. k - Property owner 1 Renters would need to be relocated if addition removed. Martha Joyce - Neighbor - additioi new infants; tenants built addition; Commissioner Bennett - How big is Commissioner Tarr - Understands I Commissioner Parkerson - Additior Commissioner Bennett - Tired of it some responsibility; wasting too m regarding ;disclosure. Commissioner Rahman - Cannot vo i A motionlwas made by Commissic sustain the Planning Director's of findings: C COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Ye COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Ye CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Y COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Findings no the is was built in 1989; tenants needed the addition with 2 escr-ibed lack of privacy, thin walls, unsightly building. he addition? (answer 10'x16'.) )w both parties must feel; cannot grant appeal. needs to meet building codes; should meet 5' setback. , ,gal additions; someone (broker /agent) needs to have ch Commission time; applicant should talk to realtor for legalizing this project. Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to n and deny the appeal based on the following es 1. A permit for the portion oft ' e addition constructed in the side yard setback cannot be .approved, in that such an encroachment is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance; and 2. Require the owner, per the Uniform Building Code, the Petaluma Municipal Code, and, the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, to modify building permit application #92001137 to remodel the existing home to provide the required 5' -0" side yard setback; and 3. Direct staff to proceed with abatement action should steps not be taken by the owner to legalize the room addition. 241 IN 242 Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1992 LIAISON REPORTS 1. SPARC 2. Tree Committee - Tree planting schedule discussed. 3. River Enhancement Committee PROJECT STATUS ADJOURNMENT 9 :10 AM min909 / pcmin7 7