Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/27/1992i 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 ' . 21 22 23 24 25 26 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 0 Planning Commission Minutes REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: Bennett, Thompson October 27, 1992 7:00 P.M. PETALUMA, CA Read, Parkerson *, Rahman, Tarr, Torliatt; Absent: STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning, Director James McCann, Principal Planner * Chairman MINUTES OF October 13, 1992 were approved as corrected. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Parkerson requested clarification regarding ! an item listed in Greensheet (inquiry regarding demolition of the French Laundry). CORRESPONDENCE: Memo from City Attorney to Planning Director regarding Cattlemen's project. APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read. LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on Agenda. CONSENT[' AGENDA None. 1 282 Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1992 NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS I. PACIFIC NEON SIGN COMPANY, CATTLEMEN'S RESTAURANT, 5012 PETALUMA BLVD. NORTH, AP NO. 007 - 412 -46, `FILE NO. VAR92008. Consideration of an appeal of an Administrative Denial of'a request to allow four Variances from the City's Sign Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance Section No's 21- 204.5.E; 21- 204.6A.1 and 3; and 26- 911 -A) as follows: a. To allow two free- standing signs where only one is permitted; b. To allow one of the freestanding signs to be 60' tall, where a maximum height of 20' is permitted; C. To permit the 60' tall sign to be oriented toward State ,Highway 101; and d. To allow the total area of the signs for the restaurant to exceed the maximum permitted by 200 sq.ft. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Jim McCann presented the staff report. Commissioner Rahman - Wasn't the Shell sign (nearby) required to be brought into conformance? Planning Director Tuft - Answered question regarding Shell sign - sign was required to be brought into conformance as a condition to a remodel project; applicant declined to undertake remodel because they didn't want to lower existing sign. Tim Haddad - 615 N. Fair Street - representing People Involved in Proper Planning - Supports staff's denial - existing illegal entrance sign may be made legal through permits; 60 ft. proposed sign must never be allowed there is no hardship; business has been in existence -for many years without a 60' sign; sign request conflicts with many General Plan policies; EIR would be required if sign were to be approved; sign would be a detriment to the community - out of character; location for proposed sign subject to Federal Highway/ CalTrans /State of California; State Clearinghouse action would be required; urges Commission 'to deny appeal. Nancy Chin- Ericson - 319 Ely - lives parallel to the Cattlemen's site; concerns with future of this area; appreciates that other illegal signs are being pursued; if this is approved, many, many other similar signs will be requested; there are other ways to promote business; urges denial. J.T. Wick - 617 N. Webster - proposed sign is too tall, too big, too close to highway; sign not necessary; :agrees with staff regarding denial of appeal. John Drury -. Pacific Neon Company - Applicant representative - (waived 72 -hour provision of staff report requirement) - The illegal sign already in place was not put up because of this application; Cattlemen's has been in this location for 22 years; other ways to advertise have been looked at; pole signs have been put up at other Cattlemen's locations and business has improved; 60 feet. height was determined by putting up a crane to determine lowest height that would work; willing to work with the City on design. (Jim McCann Jane Thomson met with applicant at the site in May - he recommended to application, that signs be redesigned to avoid need for Variances.) Pete Gillhan (President - Cattlemen's) has been in business for 22 years; Cattlemen's now needs a sign to increase business; recognition is through signage; cannot pay for 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1992 1 billboard advertising; definitely feel that this sign is needed; 65 permanent employees 2 adding ,$400,000 /year into local economy; traffic heading south cannot see Cattlemen's 3 now; business has increased at other company locations where pole signs have been added. 4 Commissioner Tarr - Cannot make Variance findings. 5 Commissioner Rahman - Cannot make required findings for Variance. 6 Commissioner `Torliatt - Could the already existing "illegal" sign. be legalized? 7 Jim McCann - Only one free - standing sign is allowed - the existing sign could possibly be legalized'. 9 Commissioner Torliatt - Cannot make Variance findings. 10 Commissioner Parkerson - 'Cannot make Variance findings - supports staff 11 recommendation. 12 W The pub'li`c hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to deny theiappeal based on the findings listed below: COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMN I_SSIONER BENNETT: Absent COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes 21 CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes 22 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes 23 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Absent 24 COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes 25 26 Findings- Y 1. The project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA (Guidelines Section 15270) which notes that CEQA does not apply to 30 projects which are disapproved. 31 32 2. The Cattlemen's restaurant has frontage on two major thoroughfares which gives 33 the restaurant unusually, high visibility., There are no peculiar and unusual 34 conditions inherent in the property in question sufficient to cause a hardship, but 35 rather Cattlemen's has an advantage over many restaurants because of its location. 36 37 3. A, hardship peculiar to the,property and not created by any act of the owner does 38 not exist. In this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective 39 profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying Variances. 40 41 4. The problem with encroaching landscaping is not peculiar to the property but is 42 typical to many properties and businesses along the Petaluma section of Highway 43 101. Such Variances are not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of 44 substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district 45 and in the vicinity, and Variances, if granted, would in fact constitute a special 46 privilege to the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. 47 48 5. The authorizing of such Variances will be of substantial detriment to adjacent 49 property 'because approval of Variances for a individual private sign would grant 50 Cattlemen's a privilege not generally enjoyed by .other properties in the vicinity. Further, granting the Variance will materially impair the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance to preserve and : improve the view of the City from the freeway and will materially impair the public interest to protect and improve the appearance of the City's gateways. 3 e - - - - -- _ - -- -- _- _ ------ ­_._._.._._.1_.­ 284 Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1992 1 2 6. The purpose of the City's Sign Ordinance is to ensure that the number, type, size 3 and design of all signs in Petaluma will not detract from the attractiveness and 4 orderliness of the City's appearance or create competition for larger and brighter 5 signs between businesses. This Variance proposal to 'allow a single business an 6 over -size, over height sign is in direct conflict With the purpose of the Sign 7 Ordinance. 7. Highway 101 and Petaluma Boulevard. North are both significant gateways to the City and important to the visual perception of the City. The Zoning Ordinance specifically prohibits signs which are designed to be viewed primarily from a freeway. Exceptions to this standard should only be allowed under extraordinary circumstances. The situation faced by the Cattlemen's restaurant is not unique or extraordinary but typical to many businesses along the Petaluma Section of Highway 101. 8. Options exist the provide additional signage on -site or to advertise off -site (e.g. media, etc.). 9 The proposed sign Variances conflict with the Policies, Programs, and Objectives of the General Plan which encourage special design consideration and. strict adherence to the City's Sign Ordinance on properties located at City gateways and for properties visible from Highway 101. II. DEBRA INVESTMENTS; SONOMA GLEN PHASE I -A TOWNHOMES.; PARCELS A..AND 1 -B (SOUTH OF SO.NOMA MOUNTAIN PARKWAY AND DIVIDED BY COLOMBARD ROAD); AP NO'S 137 -22 -01 THRU 33 AND 137=06 - 74 (parti'al); FILE NO. REZ920.12(hg). Request to resubdivide Parcel. A and Phase 1 -B of the Sonoma Glen Subdivision constituting a total area of 14.2 acres into 142 residential lotsi at an overall density of 10:0 du /ac. The applicant intends to construct 142 two -story townhomes, common pool grounds and a tot lot on the site. The following actions are required: 1. Recommend approval of a_ finding of environmental exemption. 2. Recommend approval of a Rezoning from PUD to POD to allow a new PUD Development Plan. 3. Recommend conditional approval of a PUD Development Plan for a 142 - unit Towrihome development. 4. Recommend conditional approval of a 142 -lot Tentative Map in compliance with the PUD Development Plan. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Jim McCann Presented the staff report. Commissioner R_ahman - Which roads are public, which are private? JimMcCann - All interior roads are private, those bordering the project are public. Chuck Linthicum - (waived 72 -hour provision of staff report requirement) Applicant; Debra Investment - Complimented staff on report thoroughness; acknowledged that SPARC did not 'feel the project met Specific Plan requirements - some modifications were made to exteriors to meet design criteria; cannot include another unit that is distinctly El Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1992 1 different and stay in the $160,000 - $170,000 sales range; problems with PUD Conditions 2 1,2,5A. 3 Commissioner Read - In which communities have these units been built? 4 . Chuck Linthicum - Rohnert Park, Novato, '5 Commissioner Read - What assurances' does City of Petaluma have that units will sell for 6 $160 - $170,000 range? If this range 'is, realistic sales price, we can continue to discuss 7 this. 8 Commissioner Torliatt - How many units are /were built in other projects? 9 Ch L uek. nthicum -. 160+ in one project; 42 in another.. 10 Commissioner Parkerson- :Should,be some variation insetbacks from street. 11 Chuck Linthicum, - Common areas are fairly extensive. Commissioner Read - This property has always been. slated for higher- density; lets look realistically at this project. Nancy Chin- Ericson - 319 Ely - What was the ,density of the previously approved project? (Answer no density change - 142); traffic concerns; should be more pedestrian- oriented; walking ;should be. encouraged; intersection will be major. Commissioner Torliatt - Agre:es with need for improved pedestrian circulation. Doyle Heaton - Project proponent Price range will have to be $160,0.00 $170,000 in order to sell Commissioner. Parkerson 'More pedestrian +access needs to be provided; another unit type 21 should be provided. 22 Commissioner Rahman - .Agrees with staff report especially regarding another unit type; 23 setbacks'should be adhered :to- pedestrian access is .important, 24 Commis - Stuff has done a good job incorporating SPARC recommendations 25 - these comments are very helpful. 26 Commissioner Tarr Another unit should be required riot just minor design variation; 7 better pedestrian access is needed. Commissioner Parkerson - Another unit should be introduced., 9 Commissioner Raliinan - Am I the only one, who thinks setbacks from Sonoma Mountain 30 Parkway, should be maintained? (No all agree that setback should be maintained.) 3.1 Commissioner's Read /Parkerson - (to Chuck Linthicum - Is this your best "shot "? Would 32, you like d' continuance to redesign? 33 Chuck Linthicum - Yes, this is the best "shot ". 34 Doyle Heaton We would Tike this to proceed to. Council. 35 36 The public hearing was closed. 3.7 38 A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr -and seconded by ;Commissioner Rahman to 39 recommend to the City Council a finding of exemption from 'CEQA pursuant to Section 40 15182 of the Guidelines which exempts projects' which are in conformance with areas 41 governed by Specific Plans for which. Environmental .Impact Reports have been prepared. 42 This exemption only applies if sufficient design revision is made (as conditioned) so that 43 the project is in conformance with the policies of the Corona /Ely Specific Plan. 44 45 COMMISSIONER READ: Yes 46 COMMISSIONER BENNETT:: Abse 47 COMMISSIONER RAHMA.M Yes. 48 CHAIRMAN PARKERSON` Yes 49 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT' Yes 0 COMMISSIONER THOlVIPSO Absent COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes 5 �q pJ ...... .................. _ ...... . .. --------- �_ ... ._ ..._ _., ...... _ ......... .. -_ 286 Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1992 A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed rezoning based on the following amended findings: COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETP: Absent COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes CHAIRMAN PARKERSON.: Yes COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Absent COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes Rezone Findings 1. 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 the opportunity for attached units,. of a unique -style and configuration. 2. The circulation pattern of the proposed PUD has: been dictated by the development of adjacent neighborhoods which include Glenbrook Phase 1 -A, Sonoma Glen Phase 2 -A and Sonoma Mountain Parkway, 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. 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 SPARCto insure compatibility. 4. There are no significant scenic qualities of the site that warrant specific site design alterations to insure their preservation, but the plan will provide adequate available public and private spaces designated on the DeVelopment Plan. 5. The development of the Sonoma Glen townhomes (Sonoma Glen 2 -A Parcel A and Phase 2 -B) in the manner proposed by the,,applicant, and :as conditioned by the City will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interest of the City, and will b e in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations and General Plan of the City of Petaluma. 6--- - - - -=l e e�onehmerrt- nto -t p se i ed set tel - €Fo-m -Soaon - MorrntaiA -g Flc ai=rs pei�rtted- dx�- tQ- tlie- e�isti b- pl�sie- al•- e ©nstra -i�t� -thy- inter #- a €- tl�e- pFQjee -�, ��d -fie d2�ig�ripr- eve- inent��vbie�- h-ave -beer ree ©r-rx�e�ded: A motion was made by Coin missioner Rahman and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to recommend to, the City Council approval of the Planned Unit Development Plan based on the findings and subject to the following amended conditions: COMMISSIONER READ: Yes COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Absent COMMISSIONER RAH'MAN: Yes CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes 91 Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1992 287 1 COMM °I'SSIONER THOMPSON: Absent 2 COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes 3 4 PUD Findings 5 6 1. The development plan as conditioned results in a more desirable use of the land and 7 a better physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning 8 district by providing the opportunity for attached units of a unique style and 9 configuration. 10 11 2. The circulation pattern of the proposed PUD has been dictated by the development of adjacent neighborhoods which include G'lenbrook Phase 1 -A, Sonoma Glen Phase 2 -A and Sonoma Mountain Parkway, 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. 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 21 reviewed by SPARC to insure compatibility. 22 23 4. There are no significant. scenic qualities of the site that warrant specific site design 24 alterations to insure their preservation, but the plan will provide adequate available 25 public and private spaces designated on the Development Plan. 1 6 7 5. The development of the Sonoma Glen - townhomes (Sonoma Glen 2 -A, Parcel A and 8 Phase 2 -B) in the manner proposed by the applicant, and as conditioned by the City 9 will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interest of the City, 30 and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations 31 and General Plan of the City of Petaluma. 32 33 PUD Conditions 34 35 1. The PUD Development Plan shall be amended to include, at minimum, one 36 additional building type that introduces a distinct variation in overall configuration 37 and mass to that of the currently proposed buildings to enhance the visual and 38 spatial qualities of the project both internally and from neighboring properties and 39 roads. Elements of design should include a variation in the floor plan, roof 40 orientation, garage. design and /or location (rear entry, detached, single car garage, 41 etc.), window treatment, siding material, „trim, and color, subject to SPARC review 42 and approval. ' Said new building type shall be introduced especially along the 43 Sonoma Mountain Parkway frontage. 44 45 2. In addition to Condition #1, all aspects of the proposed PUD Development Plan 46 are subject to review by the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee 47 ( SPARC) prior to application for Final Map including but not limited to: 48 architecture, public and private landscaping, hardscape surface treatments, and 49 fencing. 00 3. Particular emphasis shall be placed on SPARC review of the following aspects of selected building types A and B throughout the site: 4 a.' The incorporation of dormers above selected windows. 7 288 Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1992 1 2 b. The relocation /orientation of windows. 3 4 C. The addition of shallow, and sturdy trellis structures above the garages 5 and /or entries. 6 7 4. The Master Landscape Plan prepared for SPARC review shall specify plantings, 8 pathway surface treatments, street signage, street lighting, and mailbox details. 9 Frontage landscaping shall emphasize vegetation. Use of loose materials such as 10 gravel, rock gardens, wood chips, and bark, shall be discouraged. 11 12 5. Particular emphasis shall be placed on SPARC review of the following aspects of 13 the Master Landscape Plan: 14 15 a. The addition of a mix of larger 24" and 36" box type trees at the intersections 16 of Colombard and Riesling Roads and the parkway, and at the entrances of 17 the private roads leading into the project. 10 b. Incorporate a maximum amount of landscaping, including trees, within the public landscape right -of -way along Colombard Road utilizing plant species that are consistent with approved plantings for Sonoma Glen Phase 2A. 6. To mitigate noise levels, appropriate window treatment and a ventilation system approved by the Building Division for Lots 15 - 42, 58, and 101 - 109 shall be required. 7. The phase lines on the Tentative Map--or number of units proposed to be built per year in the development schedule shall be revised to be consistent prior to Final Map recordation. The development schedule for this project must ultimately be coordinated with the allocation pool approved in the amended Development Agreement between the City and the :Sonoma Parkway Company which became effective on August 27, 1992, so as not to exceed the annual number of allocations allotted. 8. Project CC &R's developed for the townhome units shall be subject to staff review to insure consistency with PUD Design Standards prior to Final Map recordation. Note: the City is not party to the CC &R's recorded for this development. 9. This development shall be responsible for the improvement of the area from the edge of curb up to and including the construction of the soundwall along Sonoma Mountain Parkway, consistent with the Sonoma Mountain Parkway plan and Design Guidelines. Said improvements shall be constructed in their entirety - prior to issuing any Certificates of Occupancy for townhomes along Sonoma Mountain Parkway. 10. A revised, reproducible copy of the PUD Development Plan including all applicable changes required through the conditions of approval for said PUD Development Plan and the Tentative Map must be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to Council approval of the Final Map. 11 VPJ Additional pedestrian accessways shall be provided from private areas to public roads including to Sonoma Mountain Parkway. The PUD Plan shall be revised to reflect setback requirements from Sonoma Mountain Parkway in compliance with the Corona /Ely Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1992 289 1 2 A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to 3 recommend to the City Council approval of the Tentative Map based on the findings and 4 subject to the following amended conditions: 5 6 COMMISSIONER READ: Yes 7 COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Absent 8 COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes 9 CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes 10 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes 11 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Absent 12 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 site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 21 3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 22 23 4. The subdivision provides reasonable public access on a public road to the proposed 24 lots. 25 26 5. The proposed map, subject to the following conditions, complies with the 7 requirements of the Municipal Code, Chapter 20:20 and the Subdivision Map Act. 6. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause 4 �0 substantial environmental damage, and no substantial or avoidable injury will occur 31 to fish or wildlife or their habitat. 32 33 7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not cause public 34 health problems. 35 36 8. The project is exempt from further environmental review requirements of the 37 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15182. 38 39 Tentative Map Conditions 40 41 1. All conditions of the Engineering Department shall be met, including: 42 43 a. A 12 foot emergency vehicular access shall be required on the walkway 44 within the common area around the pool connecting Champagne Place and 45 Gamay Place constructed to a traffic index of 4.0. 46 47 b., Emergency and maintenance vehicular mountable curbing shall be installed 48 at the ends of Champagne Place and Gamay Place. 49 50 C, The hammer head at the end of Vineyard Place shall be enlarged to meet City standards. d All utilities necessary to serve each phase of this development shall be constructed with that phase. If these improvements are located outside the C ............ ................ _ _..._......_._..._ - - -- 290 Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1992 phase boundary they shall be contained within an appropriate dedicated easement for. maintenance. e. The :sanitary sewer and water main within this development shall be public and each contained within their own exclusive 10 foot paved dedicated easement. All other improvements and utilities (e.g., storm drain, roadway, street lights, etc.) within this development shall be privately owned and maintained by the homeowners association. The CC &R's for this development shall specify timing of maintenance and shall be in a recordable form acceptable to City staff and recorded concurrently with the Final Map. f. City standard handicap ramps shall be installed at all curb returns. g. The boundary line between Phases 3 and 4 needs to be clearly indicated on the Tentative Map. h. Signing and striping shall clearly conform to City standards. i. 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. j. This development shall comply with all recommendations as stated in the soils report for this project. k. If .necessary, the Tentative Subdivision Map shall be revised to reflect a modification in the right -of -way needed for the joint utility trench along Sonoma Mountain Parkway near the southwest corner of Colombard Road (behind the existing bus stop). 1. All grading and erosion control shall conform to the City's Erosion Control Ordinance 15.76. m. Water pressure calculations shall be required for this development verifying the system adequacy for fire flow and domestic service. (This item shall be verified concurrent with improvement plan review.) n. A 10 foot PUE shall be dedicated adjacent to the public 'right -of -way and common roadway areas as required by the utility companies. o. This development shall be required to contribute to the City's traffic mitigation fee. p. In areas where the perpendicular parking is. proposed on the internal streets within this development care shall be taken with respect to placement of landscaping and project monument signs so as not to restrict sight distance. 2. All conditions of the Fire Marshall shall be met, including: a. The turn- around (hammerhead) at the end of Vineyard Place must meet City Standards. No parking shall be permitted in turn- around areas. No Parking - Fire Lane" shall be posted in white letters on red curb. Unobstructed drive through from Gamay Place to Champagne Place constructed to standards 10 _r_.._..._,_.--- --------------- -- - ---- - - - - -- -- -- - - - - -- --------- -..._._...._.............. _ .......... _ ...... ....... ... .......... Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1992 291 1 specified by the Engineering Department may be provided in lieu of a turn 2 around on Gamay Place. 3 4 b. Buildings 3,500 square feet and larger shall be protected by an automatic fire 5 extinguishing system as required by Section 10.306A of the 1988 'Edition of 6 the Uniform Fire Code. 7 8 c'.. buildings less than 3,500 sq. ft., provide fire suppression system at normal 9 sources of ignition.; These areas are specifically at clothes dryers, kitchen 10 stoves, furnaces, water heaters, fireplaces and in attic areas at vents and 11 chimneys for these appliances and equipment. d! Provide fire alarm system for all buildings with 3 units or more, in accordance with Section 14.104c of the, 1988 Uniform Fire Code as amended by the City of Petaluma, that are not required to be protected by a full sprinkler system. e. All roof covering material shall have a Class "B" rating or better, treated in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 32.7. 20 21 f. All roof covering materials shall have a fire rating of class "B" rating or 22 better, treated in accordance with UBC Standard 32.7, as per Ordinance 23 1744 of the City of Petaluma. 24 25 9. All roof covering materials applied as exterior wall covering shall have a fire 6 rating of class ''B ", treated in accordance with UBC Standard 32 -7, as per Ordinance 1744 City of'Petaluma. 3. All. conditions of the Building Division shall be met, including: 30 31 a. ! Construction of pool requires Sonoma County Health Department approval. 32 b. Grading must be certified when completed to indicate compliance with 33 approved plans and will b be required for occupancy. 34 C. Soils with expansion index greater than 20 required special design foundation 35 per Uniform Building Code 2904(b). 36 d.' Show site drainage and grading topography. 37 e. I Indicate all utilities on site plan. 38 f. Responsible party to sign plans. 39 g. Submit soils report to verify foundation design.. 40 h. Plans must show compliance to 1991 UBC, UPC. UMC and 1990 NEC. 41 Plans must also show compliance to current Title 24 Energy Code. 42 i. Provide structural calculations for all non - conventional design items. 43 44 5. Irrigation detail for public landscaping must be reviewed by the Park and 45 Recreation Department. 46 47 6. The Final Map must be revised prior to Council approval to include all applicable 48 changes required through the conditions of approval for the PUD Development 49 Plan, subject to staff review and approval. 7. The applicant shall create or annex this property to a landscape maintenance assessment district to maintain all landscaping and irrigation installed within the public right -of -way of the project not normally associated with private front yard maintenance, including entryway landscape area; median islands, and unused area 11 292 Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 1992 of right -of -way and cul -de -sac landscape islands subject to approval of City staff prior to final map approval. All costs associated with the formation of the Landscape Assessment District shall be borne by the developer. All landscaping contained in a proposed landscape maintenance assessment district shall be maintained for a period of one (1) year by the project sponsor prior to acceptance by the district. 8. This project shall be subject to imposition of all applicable special development fees, including water and sewer connection fees, community facilities development fees,.storm drainage impact fees, park and. recreation land improvements fee, school - facilities fees, in-lieu contribution for provision of very low, low and moderate income housing, and traffic mitigation fee. 9. The Tentative Map shall be amended to reflect all revisions /modifications required of the PUD' plan subject to staff review and approval. LIAISON °REPORTS: 1. SPARC Last meeting - challenge on Kellgren (Upham Street) in -fill development - privacy question. 2. Tree Committee - Petaluma Tree People have planted over 180 trees on the west side. 3. River Enhancement Committee - Tomorrow night's, meeting will cover the downstream stretch of the river. PROJECT STATUS Washington Square Circulation /Landscaping Masterplan; Mountain Valley Villas; Delta`Battery (appealed to the City Council); Graystone Creek (Glenbrook North). Commissioner Read - Noted that there will be a November 10 meeting regarding landfill sites (County). Commissioner Rahman - Asked if Planning Commission could 'do anything more to help staff in enforcement process? Planning Director Tuft - Noted that a re -write of the Zoning Ordinance is in progress and will include some new ideas. ADJOURNMENT 9:.15 PM. min1027 / pcmin -7 12 __.__...._...----------- _._. .................... ---