HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/25/1993464
1
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 REGULAR MEETING May 25, 1993
10 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M.
11 CITY HALL. PETALUMA., CA
12
13 COMMISSIONERS: Bennett, Read, Par`kerson *, Rahman, Tarr, Thompson, Torliatt
14
15 STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
16
17
18 Chairman
19
20
21 MINUTES OF May 11, 1993 were approved as printed.
22
23
24 PUBLIC COMMENT: John Chaney - 55 Rocca - Complaints regarding Holmberg Roofing
25 site; Mr. Holmberg has been bringing in more fill; serious concerns regarding flooding,
26 drainage; speaking for Edward Sartori and Jim West (other concerned neighbors); City
27 needs to do something to stop filling.
28 Planning Director Tuft - has been in contact with Mr. Holmberg; City is aware that more
29 fill has been placed on the site; owner.was instructed to remove fill by close of business
30 tomorrow or face legal /abatement action by the City.
31
32 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None:
33
34 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Torliatt - commented on new Minutes
35 format; felt new format is not complete enough and harder to follow than old format;
36 comments should be referenced with Commissioners name for clarification. Commissioner
37 Parkerson - New format is what we agreed on; only the essence of the discussion needs to
38 be recorded. Commissioner Thompson - Thought this was to be on a trial basis only.
39 Commissioner Rahman - If abbreviated Minutes don't work for us and for Council, we` can
40 go back to old format. Commissioner Bennett - Items going on to Council should be
41 summarized - -- Commissioner Torliatt - Maybe Minutes should be in both forms for next
42 time? Commissioner Parkerson - No, we'll see if . Council feels abbreviated Minutes are
43 acceptable.
44
45 CORRESPONDENCE: None.
46
47 APPEAL. STATEMENT: Was read.
48
49 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on agenda.
50
51
52 CONSENT AGENDA Items recommended for consideration under the Consent Calendar
53 are considered to be routine in nature by staff and are recommended to be acted upon by a
54 single:--motion by the'Planning Commission' at thebeginning of the meeting with no further
.tP .
1 discussion. The item may,, however, be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion
2 in its normal order' on the :agenda by the applicant, a Commissioner, or an interested
3' member of the public by a simple request.
4
5
6
7 NEW BUSINESS
8 CONSENT AGENDA
9
10 I. MCNEAR IIILL VESTING TENTATIVE MAP EX'T'ENSION, AP NO. 008 - 530 -04,
11 FILE NO. 6.839(jcm).
12
•
13 1. Consideration of a one -year extension of the Vesting Tentative Map for the
14 186 -unit McNear Hill Townhouse development.
15
16 Commissioner Read requested this item be removed from consent calendar.
17 Planning Director Tuft - presented the staff report; developer has made extensive public
18 improvements to the site; this extra year extension is possible because of off -site public
19 improvements installed by the developer.
{ 20 Consensus was that this will be the last extension allowed for this project.
21 Wally Kieckhefer - Applicant/develop - Confident that this will be settled within the
22 year; financing has been the problem, but taken care now.
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded' by Commissioner Rahman
25 to approve a one -year extension (to April 16, 1994) for the filing of the Vesting Final Map
26 for the 186 -unit McNear Hill Subdivision.
!' 27 _
28 COMM READ: Yes
29 COMMISSIONER'BENNETT: Yes
30 COMMISSIONERRAHMAN: ,Yes
31 CHAIRMAN PARKERSON Yes
32 COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
33 COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
34 COMMISSIONER TARR: No
35
36
37 . NEW BUSINESS
38 PUBLIC HEARING
39
40 11. DELONGIS, VARIANCE,., 21 BROWN COURT, AP NO. 008 - 371 -51, FILE NO.
41 VAR93004(dh).
42
r 43 1. Request for approval of a Variance to allow a new home to exceed the
44 maximum height of the R -1 6,500 Zoning District.
45
46 The public hearing was opened.
47
4 - SPEAKERS:
50 Planning Director Tuft - Presented the staff report does not support the granting of a
1 variance, the home does however, warrant a Zoning Ordinance Amendment - will attempt
3 made; no comments received from �2 , to process an Arnendmenf. in th next 30 -60 days; explained how height measurement was
m neighbors.
2
Matt Hudson - Attorney for applicant - would like assurance that a Zoning Ordinance
change'`will occur in a. timely (30 -60 day) manner.
Jerry Greeori Project Architect - emphasized owners want an authentic period design;
showed slides of neighboring homes to illustrate heights in general area; building mass is
contained within allowable area only because of height; 'indicated that he was aware of
height Matt Hudson Timin of designing o ect very rnportant; feels
1? building.
Timing p � , p findings for a Variance can be made;
if Commission /Council cannot ; act quickly, how would a Use Permit be looked at the
Dis�ss on c centered around inability to 'make necessary findings. for Variance; concerns
Tan nn i gn
P of Zomng Ordinance amendment.
g Director Tuft - Jun McCann will be fast - tracking Zoning Ordinance amendment;
will be brou t to Planning ommission on June 22nd.
Discussion garding thegneed for additional flexibility in development standards: and
possible Zoning. Ordinance amendment alternatives to allow increased building height in
certain circumstances.
The public hearing was closed.
A emotion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Torliatt
to deny a. Variance request based on the reworded findings as follow:
COMMISSIONER READ: Yes
COMMISSIONER BENNETT: ' No
COM IISSIONER, RAHMAN: No
CHAIRMAN PARKERSON: Yes
COMMISSIONER TORLIA '1T: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON! Yes
COMMISSIONER TARR: Yes (favors denial based on Finding. No. 1)
Fines
1. There do not exist exceptional, peculiar, or unusual conditions inherent, in the
property sufficient to cause hardship, and which are not common to most other
properties in the same zoning district.
2. Any hardship is created by an act of the owner.
3. Strict interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance would not 'deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zoning' district.
4. The variance would result in � a special privilege for the applicant which is not 4. i
enjoyed by neighboring properties.
5. Although granting a The variance w . not eoold' result in a substantial ,detriment to
a neighboring property, ; the ,granting of ' a Variance as a vehicle to approve this
residence would not be in the general public interest. other- pr opt-Ftie& r} -the- vice -
the= gene��- pxblie- i�t�Fest:
LIAISON REPORTS
1. SPARC - Landmark Tree designated on private property.
3
467
' 1 2. Tree Advisory Committee - Approved amendments to Municipal Code requiring
2 City of Petaluma to follow same procedure as private party.
3 3. River Enhancement Committee == Financing being discussed; nearing end of process,
4 will bring before Planning Commission this Fall.
5
6
7 PROJECT STATUS
8
9 1. General Plan Survey is proceeding - results are expected before the first public
10 workshop in July.
11
ADJOURNMENT 8:27 PM.
z
min525 /pcmin -8
4