HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/23/1993367
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
20
21
22
23
24
25
L 7
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
0
1
2
3
54
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING February 23, 1993
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL PETALUMA, CA
COMMISSIONERS: Present: Bennett, Read, Parkerson *, Rahman, Tarr, Thompson,
Torliatt
STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner
James McCann, Principal Planner
Jane Thomson, Senior Planning Technician
* Chairman
MINUTES OF February 9, 1993 were approved with corrections.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Bennett requested information regarding
hillside slides at Victoria Subdivision; requested follow -up information.
CORRESPONDENCE: Letter from Cathy Stewardson regarding Zero Net Fill Ordinance.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on agenda.
OLD BUSINESS
I. CITY OF PETALUMA, ZONING ORDINANCE INTERPRETATION (pt).
Zoning Ordinance interpretation regarding Section 16.300 - Zero Net Fill
Provisions.
(This Public Hearing was closed at the Planning Commission meeting of February 9.)
Planning' Director Tuft presented update on conversations with FEMA - Spoke to two
FEMA representatives; intent of FEMA Standards was that maintenance actions (such as
overlay) was not included in definition.
Commissioner Tarr - Accepts FEMA definition /intent.
1
363 Planning Commission Minutes - 2/23/93
Commissioner Read - Council has a Manufactured Home Subcommittee that will meet
again in the near future; noted that there is no sign -up sheet regarding pooling. problems at
Leisure Lake as stated by property owners engineer.
A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Bennett to
find, in the interest of clarification of this policy, that the following interpretation be
utilized for the implementation of the Zero Net Fill Policy:
COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
The interpretation of Section 16 -300, definition of "Development "shall not apply to the
placement or undertaking of normal or routine maintenance activities (e.g.: pavement
overlay) that provide a negligible impact to flood elevations, as determined by the City
Engineer.
NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
II. MICHAEL AND JULIE LAURITZEN, JOHN AND FELISMINA NUNES;
VARIANCE AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT; 614 "C" STREET (LAURITZEN -
008 - 101 -20); 44 6TH STREET (NUNES 008- 101 -21); FILE NO'S LLA6.992,
VAR92011 Ukt).
Request for approval by Michael and Julie Lauritzen and John and Felismina Nunes
for three Variances and a Lot Line Adjustment to modify the boundaries between
614 "C" Street and 44 6th Street. The following actions are required:
1. Determination that the request is exempt from the requirements of CEQA.
2. Approval of three Variance requests to:
a. Authorize a lot depth of less than 100 feet at 614 "C" Street.
b. Authorize a lot area of less than 6,500 sq.ft. at 614 "C" Street.
C. Authorize the increase of non- conformity (number of units on a
parcel) at 44 6th Street.
3. Approval of Lot Line Adjustment.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Jane Thomson presented the staff report.
Commissioner Bennett - Who legally owns the property?
Commissioners Bennett and Thompson - We shouldn't even discuss this question until
ownership is determined.
Commissioner's Rahman and Read - Ownership should be determined.
01
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/23/93
1 Planning-,Director Tuft - Mr. Nunes owns 44 6th Street, Mr. Lauritzen owns 614 C Street
2 including portion that appears to be part of 44 6th Street, therefore both parties want
3 Variance and Lot Line Adjustment.
4 Commissioner Bennett - Is staffs recommendation punitive because of excessive density?
5 Pamela Tuft - No, does not believe recommendation is punitive; Variance findings cannot
6 be made.
7 Commissioner Bennett - Density is an issue of concern because of living conditions on the
8 site.
9 Michael Lauritzen - Applicant - Purchased from his father in 1974 or so; question of who
10 owns property is not an issue; when cabins were built, both parcels were owned by
11 Lauritzen family; not trying to downplay neighbors concerns, but the question here is who
holds title to the property; property has been in same configuration for years.
John Nunes - Applicant - Agrees with Mr. Lauritzen; property belongs to him (Nunes);
nothing will change except the lot line; wants this to be straightened out soon; both people
are paying taxes on the same property.
Liona Spring - 40 6th Street (neighbor) - six units in the main house; exceptional amount of
units, exceptional amount of tenants on the lot; real problem in the neighborhood; should
not be approved because there are already too many tenants and too many units.
Steven Weiss - 618 C Street - No objection to lot line adjustment; neighbors are objecting
20 to use and,large number of tenants; the Lauritzen's have been fine neighbors.
21 Planning Director Tuft - Staff will follow -up with investigation of number of units in the
22 front house (Nunes property).
23 Ed DeCarli - 720 6th Street - If this lot line adjustment is approved and the Lauritzen
24 house burns down (on a smaller lot) could it be rebuilt? Concern is with high density,
25 agrees with lot line adjustment.
i L ?6 Planning,- Director Tuft - Yes, house could be rebuilt even if a Variance and lot line
7 adjustment are granted, existing unit at rear would need a CUP as accessory dwelling.
8 Commissioner Read - The questions are: who owns the property and how many units are
9 on the lot(s)?
30 Commissioner Parkerson - Can we grant a Variance and make the necessary findings? Can
31 make one finding, but cannot make all necessary findings.
32 Commissioner Bennett The issue is with the land, not the use of the property; I can make
33 findings for a Variance, but would like to find answers to the other problems.
34 Commissioner Torliatt - What about Historic District uses?
35 Planning Director Tuft - Through staff interpretation, the Nunes' entire property would be
36 in the Historic District.
37 Commissioner Tarr - Units are already there, have been nonconforming for years; in this
38 case, findings can be made.
39 Commissioner Read - Problems need to be addressed, especially the density.
40 Planning_ Director Tuft - Will investigate number of units on this property and report
41 findings in two weeks.
42
43 The public hearing was closed.
44
45 A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to
46 grant the Variance and Lot Line Adjustment based on the findings listed below, and to
47 direct staff to pursue the density questions (number of units).
48
49 COMMISSIONER READ.: No
0 COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
;1 COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
2 CHAIRMAN PARKERSON:No
3 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
54 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
369
370 Planning Commission Minutes - 2/23/93
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
Findings
1. There are peculiar and unusual conditions inherent in the property in question
sufficient to cause a, hardship, and that such conditions are not common to all or
most of the properties in the immediate area.
2. A hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists.
In this context, personal, family or financial - difficulties, loss of prospective profits,
and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance.
3. 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 /her neighbors.
4. The authorizing of such variance shall not be of substantial detriment to adjacent'
property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this ordinance or the public
interest.
III, MARC NEGRI, PALM SUBDIVISION, 433 SONOMA MOUNTAIN PARKWAY,
APN 136 - 111 -58; FILE TSM92006(hg).
Request to subdivide a 1:5 acre parcel at 433 Sonoma Mountain Parkway into six
single- family residential lots and one lot for the development of a dwelling group. (2
detached single- family homes). The following actions are required:
1. Recommend to the City Council adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
2. Granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a dwelling group.
3. Recommend to the Council granting of a Subdivision Ordinance
Modification to allow a shared driveway for 4 lots.
4. Recommend to the City Council approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map .to
subdivide the property into six single- family residential lots and' one lot for
the construction of a 2 unit dwelling group.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Jim McCann presented the staff report.
Commissioner Torliatt - How far to a break in the soundwall?
Commissioner Read Fire Department conditions - can fire trucks still get in the area?
Questions regarding flag lot - any speed bumps?
Commissioner Rahman - Who chooses street trees? (answer: the developer from the new
Street Tree List.)
Commissioner Tarr - Density is excessive for this property; access problems.
Commissioner Parkerson - Not overcrowded - fair use of the lot.
Commissioner Rahman - Project is too dense.
Commissioner Read - Are these all two -story homes? SPARC needs to be made aware of
this.
Jim McCann - Design Guidelines could be made more specific.
2
Planning Commission Minutes- 2/23/93
1 George Nazzal - Adjacent property owner (Clary Way) - Project is too dense; will be
2 sharing back yard area with 4 neighbors; sideyard setbacks too close; shared driveway
3 probably won't work; 7 lots (8 units) excessive.
4 Tom Jones - Applicant's Engineer - Challenging land use plan because it's an in -fill project;
5 lots approximately same size as Pipestone (Park Place Unit 4, behind project); Design
6 Guidelines will be sensitive to existing development; no concerns with conditions.
7 Commissioner Read - Did you look at this utilizing regular City Standard streets?
8 Tom Jones - Yes; the proposed design gave better access.
9 Jim Hamilton - 410 Pipestone Circle - Has everyone on the Commission been to the
10 property? Concerns regarding density; elevations and mass of houses; sorry to see empty
11 land disappear; questions regarding the soundwall.
John Kennedy - Urges developers to "do a good job "; there is a mix of styles and houses in
the area; there are ways to make density appear less; at the design phase - do neighbors
have any input?
Planning Director Tuft - Design Guidelines are subject to staff approval, can be subject to
SPARC With notice to all who spoke.
Z Mark Negri - Applicant - Many meetings with staff; lots are larger than many in the
surrounding area; property owner is sensitive to design concerns; project will be an asset to
the neighborhood; average lot size is around 8,000 sq.ft.
20 Commissioner Read - Will existing fences between project and rear yards of Pipestone
21 Circle be used? (answer: Yes, there will also be a three -foot wide planter strip.)
22 Commissioner Tarr - Lots are larger than I originally thought.
23 Commissioner Thompson - Can house sizes be limited or can number of two -story homes
24 be regulated?
25 Commissioner Bennett - Lot 4 should have some limitations.
6 Commissioner Thompson - Project is too dense.
7 Commissioner Parkerson - Project fits into the neighborhood; Design Guidelines can
8 address density questions.
9 Commissioner Thompson - Wants limitation of sizes of homes and coverage on lots.
30 Planning_ Director Tuft - There shouldn't be massing problems in relation to existing
31 custom homes.
32
33 The public hearing was closed.
34
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to
36 recommend to the City Council approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Palm
37 Subdivision based on the findings and Mitigations listed below:
38
39 COMM =ISSIONER READ: Yes
40 COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
41 COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
42 CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes
43 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
44 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: No (project too dense)
45 COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
46
47 Findings
48
49 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received, there is no substantial
1 0 evidence that the project, with the incorporation of the following mitigation
1 measures, will have a significant effect on the environment.
2
3 2. An Initial Study has been conducted by this lead agency, which has evaluated the
54 potential for this project to cause an effect -- either individually or cumulatively - -on
371
R
372 Planning Commission Minutes - 2/23/93
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 ".
3. There is no evidence that the proposed project would have any potential for adverse
effect on wildlife resources.
Mitigation Measures (Note: some of these mitigations have already been included on the
Tentative Subdivision Map.)
1. A sound wall of equal height and matching materials as the existing sound wall
screening homes within Park Place 4 from Sonoma Mountain Parkway shall be
constructed across the common boundary of Lot 7 and Sonoma Mountain Parkway
prior to acceptance of public improvements for Phase 4 2. The design of said wall
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Director of
Engineering prior to the approval of the Final Map.
2. Sidewalk improvements shall be installed across the site's Sonoma Mountain
Parkway frontage with to join the existing sidewalks on either side of the site.
Installation of said sidewalk shall occur prior to acceptance of public improvements
for Phase 4 2.
3. A 1 foot non - access easement shall be established across the Acadia Drive frontage
of Lot: 1 and across the Sonoma Mountain Parkway frontage of Lot 7.
4. An emergency access easement shall be recorded over the private driveway for Lots
1, 5, 6, and 7.
5. A 5' public landscape easement shall be included across the frontages of Lots 3 and
4 with Clary Way, and a minimum of four street trees shall be installed within said
easement of a variety consistent with existing trees in the neighborhood. Said trees
shall be reflected on the improvement drawings subject to staff review and shall be
installed prior to the acceptance of public improvements for Phase 1..
6. Landscaping consisting of trees and shrubs shall be installed within the 3' strip
provided between the driveway and fence serving Lots 1, 5, 6, and 7. Said
landscaping shall be reflected on a landscape plan submitted prior to the approval
of the Final Map. Landscape improvements shall be installed prior to acceptance of
public improvements for Phase 2.
7. All landscaping within the public right -of -way shall be maintained by the project
sponsor for a period of one year following acceptance of the public improvements.
8. Private landscaping required adjacent to the common driveway for Lots 1, 5, 6, and
7 shall be maintained by the project sponsor. Upon sale and development of the
lots, the maintenance of the landscaping shall become the responsibility of the
property owner(s). Private storm drain, driveway, and landscape maintenance
agreements between lots 1, 5, 6, and 7 shall be submitted in a recordable form.
These agreements shall also specify timing of maintenance and be in a form
acceptable to the City staff, and recorded concurrent with the Final Map.
A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to
approve a Conditional Use Permit to authorize development of a Dwelling group on Lot 7
of the Palm. Subdivision based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed below:
C
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/23/93
1
2 COMMISSIONER READ: Yes .
3 COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
4 COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
5 CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes
6 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Absent (stepped out)
7 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
8 COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
9
10 Findings
11
1. The proposed dwelling group, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and
intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan.
2. The proposed dwelling group, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and
.intent of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance in that the project has adequately
addressed all applicable sections of the Ordinance pertinent to issuing this
2 Conditional Use Permit within the R -1 District.
20 3. The proposed dwelling group will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the
21 public welfare of the community.
22
23 Conditions of-Use Permit (Note: These conditions will be incorporated as conditions in
24 the Resolution adopted by Council for the Tentative Subdivision Map.)
25
'6 1. The deed for Lot 7 shall include a restriction requiring the development of two (2)
7 detached single family homes. Further, said deed shall insure that any building
8 permits issued by the City for the development of Lot 7 must include two detached
9 single family units, and in no instance will a Certificate of Occupancy be issued for
30 one unit prior to the completion of the other.
31
32 2. The Design Guidelines shall provide specific standards for the dwelling group on
33 Lot 7 including: driveway and garage orientation /location, common versus private
34 yard area, building orientation and massing, reduced building height /mass for that
35 frontage of the units facing Sonoma Mountain Parkway, and recommendations to
36 reduce privacy impacts, subject to staff review and approval prior to final map
37 recordation.
38
39 A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Tarr to
40 approve the Subdivision Ordinance Modification based on the findings and subject to the
41 conditions listed below:
42
43 COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
44 COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
45 COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
46 CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes
47 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Absent (stepped out)
48 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
49 COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
0
1
2
3
54
373
7
374 Planning Commission Minutes - 2/23/93
Findings:
1. A modification to the driveway standards of Section 20.28.140 of the Municipal
Code will serve to reduce the number of driveway approaches onto Acadia Drive,
thereby reducing traffic conflicts and improving safety.
2. There are special circumstances affecting the property because of its shape and
imposed access prohibition to Sonoma Mountain Parkway which limit access
options to the site's interior.
3. Granting of the modification will not be' detrimental to the public welfare or safety,
or injurious to other property owners in the territory in which said property is
situated.
Conditions of Subdivision Ordinance Modification:
1. Cross over access and maintenance easements will be required for Lots 1, 5, 6, and 7
for access across the driveway.
2. Agreements for private storm drainage and driveway maintenance, including
landscaping, between lots served by this system and driveway shall be submitted in a
recordable form. These agreements shall also specify timing of maintenance and be
in a form acceptable to the City staff, and recorded concurrent with the Final Map.
A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Bennett "to
recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map (six
single- family residential lots and one dwelling group) based on the findings and subject to
the amended conditions listed below:
COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
Findings for Tentative Subdivision Map
The proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and improvement,
is consistent with the General Plan.
2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed.
3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
4. The Tentative Subdivision Map provides reasonable public access to a public road
for the proposed lots.
5. The proposed map, subject to the following conditions, complies with the
requirements of the Municipal Code, Chapter 20.20 and the Subdivision Map Act.
Planning rCommission Minutes - 2/23/93
1 6. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause
2 substantial environmental damage, and no substantial or avoidable injury will occur
3 to fish or wildlife or their habitat.
4
5 7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not cause public
6 health problems.
7
8 Conditions of Tentative Subdivision Map
9
10 1. All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met, including:
11
a. All structures on Lots 6 and 7 are required to have an approved NFPA 13 -D
AN residential sprinkler system.
b., In all other dwellings, provide fire suppression system at normal sources of
ignition. These areas are specifically at clothes dryers, kitchen stoves,
furnaces, water heaters, fireplaces, and in attic areas at vents and chimneys
2 for these appliances and equipment.
20 C. Buildings 3,500 square feet and larger shall be protected by an automatic fire
21 extinguishing system as required by Section 10.306A of the 1988 Edition of
22 the Uniform Fire Code.
23
24 d All roof covering material shall have a Class "B" rating or better, treated in
25 accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 32.7.
6
7 e'.; 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
29 Ordinance 1744 of the City of Petaluma.
30
31 f. Any building constructed in excess of 150 feet from a public way shall be
32 provided with an access, minimum twenty (20) feet unobstructed all- weather
33 hard surface, 'thirteen feet -six inches (13'6 ") vertical height clearance (see
34 attached).
35
36 g. Post sign at turn - around "No Parking, Fire Apparatus Turn - Around'.
37
38 h. Curbs on fire access roadways shall be painted red and words "Fire Lane, No
39 Parking" stenciled in four (4) inch letters on curbs.
40
41 2. All requirements of the Building Division shall be met, including:
42
43 a. Grading must be certified when completed to indicate compliance with
44 approved plans and will be required for occupancy.
45
46 b Soils with expansion index greater than 20 requires special design foundation
47 per Uniform Building Code 2904(b).
48
49 C. All roofing shall be "B" rated or better per Ordinance No. 1744/1988.
0
1 d. Detail soundwall' drainage and swales.
2
3 e. Responsible party to sign plans.
54
375
0
376 planning Commission Minutes - 2/23/93
3.
f. Submit soils report to verify foundation design.
g. Plans must show compliance to 1991 UBC, UPC, UMC, and 1990 NEC.
Plans must also show compliance to current Title 24 Energy Code.
h. Demolition permit required to remove any structure.
i. Abandonment of water well or septic system must be done under permit
from County of Sonoma Public Health Department.
All requirements of the Engineering Department shall be met, including:
a. The private driveway serving Lots 1, 5, 6 and 7 shall be signed "Fire Lane"
with the curbs painted red and a "No Parking" sign installed at the end of the
turn- around.
b. The one -foot non - access easement adjacent to Acadia Drive shall be
extended across Lot 1 frontage only.
C. An emergency access easement shall be required over the private driveway.
d. The public sanitary sewer and water main located on private property shall
each be contained in their own exclusive 10 -foot paved dedicated easement.
e. The existing driveway off of Sonoma Mountain Parkway shall be removed
and replaced with City standard curb, gutter and sidewalk.
f. 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.
g. This development shall comply with all recommendations as stated in the
soils report for this project.
h. If. positive lot drainage cannot be obtained, then all backyard drainage
control shall be within an underground pipe system with surface catchment
swales and inlets.
i. Private storm drain and driveway maintenance agreements between lots
served by this system and driveway shall he submitted in a recordable form.
These agreements, shall also specify timing of maintenance and be in a form
acceptable to the City staff, and recorded concurrent with the Final Map.
j. All grading and erosion control shall conform to the City's Erosion Control
Ordinance 15.76.
k. Signing and striping shall conform to City Standards.
1. This development shall be required to contribute to the City's traffic
mitigation fee.
m. The private driveway shall have a structural section to meet a traffic index of
4.0 design requirement as stated in the soils report.
10
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/23/93
n. 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).
5
6
0. A 10' PUE shall be dedicated to the public right -of -way as required- by the
7
utility companies.
8
9
4.
Policy 10 within the Housing Element of the General Plan (Ch. 9) "....requires
10
developments of 5 or more units to (a) provide between 10% and 15% of their units
11
at below- market -rents or prices, (b) contribute to the in -lieu housing fund, or, (c)
propose alternative measures so that the equivalent of 10% of the 15% of their units
will be available to and affordable by households of very low, low and moderate.
income." To be in compliance with the General Plan Housing Element, one of the
three options above must be met with the development of this project.
5.
Improvement plans shall include private driveway cuts for Lots 2 -4. Said driveway
cuts /drive approaches shall be installed prior to acceptance of Public Improvements
for Phase 1.
20
21
6.
Design Guidelines shall be developed for the subdivision, subject to SPARC st -aff
22
review and approval prior to application for Final Map with particular emphasis on
23
the following:
24
25
a.. Quality and variety of architecture and use of exterior materials.
b. Fencing , including provisions for open fence designs i.e., post and wire, and
private front yard landscaping.
29
30
C. Architectural compatibility, structural size and massing (Lots 2 -6 particularly)
31
with the existing neighborhood.
32
33
d. Privacy of existing homes and between proposed homes.
34
35
e. Diversity of single and two -story units.
36
37
7.
Individual lot compliance with the design guidelines shall be subject to
38
administrative SPARC review prior to building permit application.
39
40
8.
The existing 5 +' solid wood fencing running along the front boundaries of Lots 1 -4
41
shall be removed or relocated behind the 25' front yard setback to comply with
42
applicable zoning setbacks for the new lots, subject to staff review and approval
43
prior to approval of the Final Map.
44
45
9.
Any existing perimeter fencing constructed with adjacent homes and shared by this
46
project that are in need of repair as determined by City staff shall be repaired in
47
conjunction with public improvements for Phase 1, subject to staff review and
48
approval.
10.
This project shall annex into an existing Landscape Assessment District (LAD) for
the perpetual maintenance of required landscaping and other improvements on
adjacent public lands i.e., Sonoma Mountain Parkway, Clary Way, and Acadia Drive
prior to recordation of the final map. The current cost to annex is $5,000.00,
54
payable to the City prior to Final Map approval.
377
11
378 Planning Commission Minutes - 2/23/93
11. The front yard building setback line (BSL) indicated for Lot 1 shall be increased to
25'. The existing house on Lot 1 must be modified to conform with said 25' front
yard setback prior to acceptance of the public and private improvements necessary
for Phase 2.
12. The rear building setback line (BSL) indicated for Lot 3 (yard area abutting Lot 4)
must be increased to 20 the BSL fronting on Clary Way (25') may be reduced to 15'
prior to Final Map approval. The northwest sideyard of Lot 4 shall be increased to
10.
13. To accommodate the proposed common driveway for Lots 1, 5, 6, and 7, the existing
garage must be removed and replaced. The removal of the existing garage and
construction of the new garage for the house on Lot 1 shall be completed prior to
acceptance of the public and private improvements necessary for Phase 2.
14. In addition to the Oak trees proposed within the public right-of-way. adjacent to
Sonoma Mountain Parkway, ground cover consistent with existing plantings to the
north shall be included, subject to staff review and approval.
15. The following Special Development Fees will be applicable to this project: Water
and Sewer connection, Community Facilities Development, Storm Drainage Impact,
Park and Recreation Land Improvements, Traffic Impact, and School Facilities. "
16. A landscape plan reflecting all required landscape improvements shall be submitted
for review and approval prior to the approval of the Final Map. Landscaping
improvements shall be installed with their respective phases.
17. All trees shall be a minimum fifteen gallon size (i.e. trunk diameter of at least 3/4
inch measured one foot above the ground) unless otherwise specified (e.g.: 24" box
or specimen size) and double staked; all shrubs shall be five gallon size. All
landscaped areas not improved with lawn shall be protected with a two -inch deep
bark mulch as a temporary measure until the ground cover is established.
18. Root barrier systems shall be utilized for trees near streets or walkways as needed,
subject to staff review and approval.
19. All work within a public right -of -way requires an excavation permit from the
Department of Public Works.
20. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and
Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.).
[I I
12
Planning; Commission Minutes - 2/23/93
1
r 2
3 IV. PETALUMA ECUMENICAL PROJECTS (PEP), JUDITH COURT
? 4 SUBDIVISION, BETWEEN VALLEJO AND PAYRAN EAST OF JEFFERSON,
5 A1PN 007- 104 -01, 03,04; FILE NO. ZOA93001(hg).
6
7 Recommendations to the City Council:
8
9 1. Finding of CEQA Exemption.
10
11 2. Amendment to the Planned Unit Development Plan for the 24 -lot residential
subdivision to allow the use of alternate house design and setback standards.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Jim McCann - Presented the staff report.
Tim Kellgren - Vice President, PEP - Pleased that City approved original concept and was
20 able to :proceed; whole project contingent on both aspects of project; supportive of
21 proposed changes; two -car garages helpful to keep cars off of street, creates a more
22 attractive neighborhood.
23 Planning,_ Director Tuft - Please clarify - Is PEP selling this property to private developers
24 or will PEP participate in construction and sale of homes?
25 Tim Kellgren - Yes, project is being sold to private developers, no participation after sale
66 of property.
7 Barbara Lind - PEP advocate; history of PEP; design changes should be allowed; slim
8 profit margin for developers; grant builders the flexibility to make requested changes.
z9 Beverly fond - 3 Acorn Circle - Secretary for PEP; the requested changes are plusses, the
30 changeswill make a positive difference on project.
31 Dick Lieb - Designer - three different models in project; market rate housing (this is not
32 subsidized); these changes will upscale project; described original and new projects; project
33 will be paying full fees; no increase in sales prices; neighbors all in favor of new project.
34 Commissioner Tarr - Will there be less on- street parking with double car garages?
35 Dick Lieb - Passed out drawing of third elevation for single - family dwellings.
36 Commissioner Rahman - Does not like tandem garages; marketability needs to be
37 considered.
38 Commissioner Parkerson - Small units (original) were impressive; architecture of existing
39 neighborhood was reflected in original PUD design. This subdivision must be subjected to
40 the same scrutiny and held to the same standards as other subdivisions.
41 Commissioner Read - This is a no -win situation for Planning Commission /City; If we don't
42 pass this project, will PEP project be affected?
43 Commissioner Bennett - These prices are not low- income prices; project will just be
44 another subdivision; this is not low- income housing.
45 Commissioner Rahman (to Dick Lieb) Is there an anticipated problem at the lending
46 stage?
47 Dick Lieb - This project has never been presented as low- income housing; market calls for
48 2 -car garages.
49 Commissioner Parkerson - Staff's request is reasonable, should not cause a hardship.
0
1 The public hearing was closed.
2
3 A motion was made by Commissioner Tarr and seconded by Commissioner Read to find
54 that a Mitigated Negative Declaration previously granted for this site is still applicable and
J
13
380 Planning Commission Minutes - 2/23/93
to recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to the Judith Court PUD
Development Plan and Design Guidelines subject to all previous conditions and with one
additional condition listed below:
COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: No (does not like detached garages on small lots but
proposed houses are too large - does not support redesign)
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: No (lots too small for other than standard garages but
does not support proposed redesign)
CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: No (houses too big for lots _ staff recommendations not
strong enough)
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
Added Condition
Plans submitted to SPARC shall be subject to review for conformance with the
following:
a. Introduce at least one additional single family unit design on a minimum of
25% of the single family lots that includes a detached garage or one that is
recessed significantly from the street; similar to the single family units of the
currently approved Development Plan.
b. Introduce at least one additional single family unit design on a minimum of
25% of the single family lots that includes a narrow, single lane garage,, but of
an increased depth so that two vehicles may be parked in tandem. (This type
of garage design is being used in the homes currently under construction in
the Heritage Woods subdivision off Sonoma Mountain Parkway.)
V. GENERAL PLAN FINDING OF CONSISTENCY: SEWER CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN (ky).
Finding in response to Council review of draft sewer capital improvement plan.
SPEAKERS:
Kurt Yeiter presented the staff report.
Commissioner Tarr Question regarding Gray property sewer extension.
Tom Hargis (City Engineer) The sewer extension is minimum size (6 inches) Sewer
Master Plan done in 1985 recognized the Urban Limit Line.
A motion was made by Commissioner Bennett and seconded by Commissioner Rahman to
find that the Sewer 5 -year capital Improvement Plan conforms to, furthers the interests of,
and helps implement the goals, objectives and programs of the General Plan.
COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
14
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
CD
R:yr
C
20
21
22
23
24
25
Planning Commission Minutes - 2/23/93
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes
LIAISON REPORTS
1. SPARC - 6 Landmark Trees have been nominated.
2. Tree Committee - Approved year -end report for Council review.
3. River Enhancement Committee - Will meet tomorrow night - Oaks area will be
discussed (new factory outlet area).
PROJECT STATUS
1. Western Charter Tours -.Draft agreement received today from Matt Hudson - will
go to City Attorney "for comments.
2. Delta Battery - Nuisance abatement to City Attorney.
ADJOURNMENT To February 27, 1993, 9:00 AM, Lucchesi Community Center, for field
trip throughout the City.
This meeting was adjourned at 10:45 PM.
min0223 / pcom23
15