HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 4.B 10/18/2004%-► i Y uF rETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
AGENDA 1 4&8
BILL OCT 18 2004 .-
Agenda Title Consideration of a Request by Lon and Peggy Wiley
Meeting Date: October 18, 2004
to Accept Their Appeal of a Decision by the Planning Commission
to Uphold in Part and Deny in Part an Appeal of a Decision by the
Community Development Director and City Engineer to
Meeting Time ® 3:00 PM
Administratively Approve a Tentative Parcel Map for Property
❑ 7:00 PM
Located at 3 Ricci Court.
Category (check one) Consent Calendar ❑ Public Hearing ❑ New Business
N Unfinished Business ❑ Presentation
Department
Community
Director
Mike Moore
Contact Person:
Mike Moor
Phone Number 778 -4301
Development
Cost of Proposal $2724.82 are the fees owed by the Wiley's for
Account Number
the processing of their parcel map application and the appeal to the
Planning Commission.
Name of Fund:
Amount Budgeted $0.00; costs are recovered from the applicant
under the City's adopted fee schedule.
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item
1) Location Map
2) August 25, 2004 Letter from Lon and Peggy Wiley
3) May 18, 2004 Memo from City Clerk to Community Development Director Regarding the Blue
Appeal
Summary Statement On April 22, 2004, Community Development administratively approved the
Wiley's application for a tentative parcel map to split their
property at 3 Ricci Court into 2 lots. The
decision to approve the parcel map was appealed to the Planning Commission by the Wiley's and Forest
and Linda Blue, who live at 4 Ricci Court. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on both appeals
on July 13, 2004., In a unanimous decision, the Planning Commission denied the Blue's appeal and upheld
in part and denied in part the Wiley's appeal. The City's standard appeal language, which is printed on the
Planning Commission agenda and read into the record at the beginning of each Commission meeting and
included in all decision letters to the applicants and/or appellants, states that "any person who disagrees
with this decision
may appeal such ruling within 14 calendar days of the decision of the Planning
Commission." The Wiley's contend that they were misinformed by Community Development staff about
the date of their appeal deadline, and as a result were denied their appeal right to the City Council. We
respectfully disagree for the reasons explained in the body of this report. They submitted a letter to the City
Council dated August 25, 2004 (attached) outlining the reasons why their appeal should be accepted. There
are three issues for the City Council to consider in this item:
1) Should the Wiley's appeal be accepted by the City Council and set for hearing?
2) If the Wiley's are granted an appeal right after this length of time (the 14 -day appeal period of the
Planning Commission decision ended July 27, 2004), should that same right be extended to the
Blue's or any other neighbor?
3) Based on the City's adopted fee structure, the Wiley's owe the City $2,724.82 for the cost of
processing their parcel map and the appeal to the Planning Commission. An appeal to the City
Council will also be a cost recovery process. Staff would request direction from the Council as to
whether the appeal should be scheduled while these fees are outstanding. Additional cost recovery
fees will be charged if the City Council agrees to hear the appeal.
Recommended City Council Action /Suggested Motion
The City Council has the discretion to interpret its own rules and procedures and grant the Wiley's their
appeal right on this matter. If the Council determines that the appeal should be heard, a date needs to be set
would provide adequate time for the public hearing notice. Staff would also request Council direction or�
the issues of the status of the Blue's appeal right and the outstanding processing fees.
0I
ce Director: Reviewed by City Attorney
Date: Date:
M
October 7, 2004
Avvroved by City Mana er:
0� Date:
_ I File Code:
•
is
M
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
OCTOBER 18, 2004
• AGENDA REPORT
FOR
CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY LON AND PEGGY WILEY TO ACCEPT THEIR APPEAL
OF A DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO UPHOLD IN PART AND DENY IN PART
AN APPEAL OF A DECISION BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND CITY
ENGINEER TO ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 3 RICCI COURT.
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 22, 2004, Community Development administratively approved the Wiley's application for a tentative
parcel map to split their property at 3 Ricci Court into 2 lots. The decision to approve the parcel map was
appealed to the Planning Commission by the Wiley's and Forest and Linda Blue, who live at 4 Ricci Court. The
Planning Commission held a public hearing on both appeals on July 13, 2004., In a unanimous decision, the
Planning Commission denied the Blue's appeal and upheld in part and denied in part the Wiley's appeal. The
City's standard appeal language, which is printed on the Planning Commission agenda and read into the record
at the beginning of each Commission meeting and included in all decision letters to the applicants and/or
appellants, states that "any person who disagrees with this decision may appeal such ruling within 14 calendar
days of the decision of the Planning Commission." The Wiley's contend that they were misinformed by
Community Development staff about the date their appeal period ended, and as a result were denied their appeal
right to the City Council. We respectfully disagree. Community Development staff responded to the questions
Ay were asked by the Wiley's, which had to do with when the Wiley's would know if another party had filed
appeal. Our standard response to that question is that we would not know for sure until the day after the
appeal period ended because appeals are filed right up until the Clerk's Office closes at 5 PM on the last day of
the appeal period, and if the appellant does not drop a copy off at Community Development, we would not get a
copy of the appeal until the next day (the day after the appeal period closes). They submitted a letter to the City
Council dated August 25, 2004 (attached) outlining the reasons why their appeal should be accepted.
2. BACKGROUND
Because the issue before the City Council is whether or not to grant the Wiley's request for an appeal of the
Planning Commission's decision, staff is not providing any background information on the project itself, other'
than a basic chronology of events. If the Council determines to grant the Wiley's appeal request, all of the
essential background information related to the project will be provided at that time. However, the Wiley's
August 25, 2004 letter requesting the Council to grant their appeal states as a basis for accepting their request
that "one of the appeals against our project was accepted despite being legally stamped a day late by the City
Clerk's Office." This Wiley's have attached a copy of the appeal letter of Forest and Linda Blue with the
Clerk's date stamp and a copy of the receipt for the Blue's appeal. Both are dated May 7, 2004, which was one
day after the end of the 14 -day appeal period for the administrative approval of the tentative parcel map. The
Blue's appeal was received at the Clerk's Office on May 6, but was date - stamped May 7, 2004 in error. A copy
of a memo from the City Clerk to the Community Development Director explaining the error is attached. The
receipt for the appeal filing fee for the Blue's is dated May 7, 2004 because that is the date the Blue's check was
entered into the City's finance system.
® ALTERNATIVES
The Council may choose not to accept the Wiley's request and not hear the appeal. In that case, the Planning
Commission's decision would stand.
4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS
If the City Council chooses to hear the appeal, we would request that the appeal not be scheduled until the
Wiley's have paid the $2,724.82 that is outstanding for the processing of their tentative parcel map and the
appeal to the Planning Commission and acknowledge that they will be responsible for the costs of processing•
the appeal to the City Council.
CONCLUSION
N/A
6. RECOMMENDATION
If the City Council chooses not to agree to the Wiley's request to hear their appeal, then no further action is
necessary.
If the City Council chooses to grant the Wiley's request to hear their appeal, then staff recommends that the
Council also provide direction on the following:
A) Setting a date for the appeal hearing (with sufficient time to allow for the usual public notice in the
newspaper and to property owners within 500 feet).
B) Determining whether or not the Blue's or any other neighbor be given an opportunity to also file an
appeal on this matter and if so, by what date?
C) Providing direction on the payment of outstanding fees and the fee for rocessin •
Council.
p g the appeal to the City
•
Attachment B
Lon and Peggy Wiley
#3 Ricci Ct.
Petaluma, CA 94952
August 25, 2004
• HAND DELIVERED
TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City Council
City of Petaluma
11 English St.
Petaluma, CA 94952
Subject: Late Appeal by Lon & Peggy Wiley to City Council Dated July 28, 2004
Lands of Wiley
3 Ricci Ct.
APN# 006 - 181 -012
File 03TPM0344
Dear Council Members:
We are requesting that the City Council accept our appeal despite being filed one day
late. Twice we went to the Planning Department to confirm the final day that appeals
would be accepted and to find out if any other appeals had been filed. Each time the
Planning Department gave us the date of July 28, 2004.
The Planning Department now says that we were asking only when we would know if
• there was another appeal. But, why would we be asking that question if we fully
intended to file our own appeal? We expected that there would be another appeal as there
had been twice before. In each of those appeals unfounded accusations had been made
against us and we wanted to answer any new ones in our own appeal to the City Council.
We understand that the City has the discretion to accept our appeal. Interestingly, one of
the appeals against our project was accepted despite being legally stamped a day late by
the City's Clerks Office. (See Attachments)
What we are asking for is not unreasonable and we request that the City Council accept
our appeal.
Sincerely, F
Lon & Peggy Wiley
Attachments: Late Blue Appeal and On -line Receipt Query
cc
David Glass
Mike Harris
Mike Healy
Bryant Moynihan
Mike O'Brien
E. Clark Thompson
Pamela Torliatt
Rnhert (Milker
RECEIVED
AUG 3 0 2004
to "
CCMUNi, i unCLUNMENI u, AHJMENi
� I / - AV-kc) ?U-64-Le—
A r ! 1 03
Forest & Linda Blue
4 Ricci Ct ' -
Petaluma, CA 94952
(707)65&2266
May 5, 2004
City of Petaluma
Community Development Department
Planning Commission
11 EnWisb Sftd
Petaluma, CA 94959
RE: Parcel Division — 3 Ricci CL (File No. 03-TPM-0344CR)
Assessor's Parcel 006-181-012
Dear Plannin Commission;
�J
We Im at 4 Ricci Q, the only other house on Ricci Court besides 3 Them Court We me
not against adding anod= house to the court, but we are appealing because some of the
conditions of the appmval set forth will drastically impact the enjoyment and property
value of our home.
Condition 17 states:
After the ksWlafion of the proposed. storm drain, the entire mrEace of Ricci Court shall
be slurry sealed_ "NoParking-Fuie Lane signs shall be installed on Ricci CL
Cunuatly, we have on street parking on I;Ucm located about 20 fee -from our front door.
TIns proposed plan now malding Ried a no parking zone will make the only on street
paddng available on I-murl locabmd over 150 fiom our front door.
We spoke to Craig Spalding in Engineering and he said that by adding a new lot to 3
Ricci CL the CiWs nrw codes must be enforced- He told me that 1f3 Ricci CL was not
being divided that the parking our home (4 Ricci) and 541 Laurel (2 Rim CL) has
enjoyed for almost 15 ycw s would not be affecuxL
We PBIPOse that dmm be no paiking allowed an the opposite side of the street from our
home, whore these currently is a fence. This wM allow for a passing law for emergency
vehicles. Another acceptable solutton, is that Ricci Ct be extended into the private drive
at 3 Ricci CL and it becomes public property so there can be a st4mbdion. for as many
public pwinng spams lost (5-7) located off the private emergency turn - around in front of
3 Ricci and the proposed 7 Ricca Court. We am also hq;mg that at least one public
parldmg space wffl be left in front of our home at 4 Ricci Court-
We Understand that P IS OPticnallY provided by the city, but truthfully we would
.have never bought a house that we could not park on the street m h o f an d I am sure I f
•
0
•
r
L -A
"Un-E. u�c Rrcrio[ CJuery
9c ;dc:
e *� y 3'..d.RFr2...!ae�r....
0 4
CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
MEMORANDUM
ffice of the City Clerk, 11 English Street, Petaluma, California 94952
(360 Fax 707. 778 •4554 E -mail: cityclerk@ci.petaluma.ca.us
DATE: May 18, 2004
TO: Mike Moore, Director, Community Development
FROM: Gayle Petersen, City Clerk 14�
SUBJECT: Letter from Forest and Li a ue Regarding Parcel Division — 3
Ricci Court
On May 6, 2004, Forest and Linda Blue delivered two originals of a letter to the City Clerk's
Office regarding Parcel Division of 3 Ricci Court. We incorrectly date stamped both originals
"May 7, 2004."
Immediately after leaving one original with us, Mr. and Mrs. Blue delivered the other original to
the Community Development Department. Tiffany Robbe received that letter, and date stamped
it correctly: "May 6, 2004."
0
•