HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Resolution 2011-08 01/11/2011 RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -08
CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING THE APPEAL BY JESSE RHODES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO APPROVE
MODIFICATIONS TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL.REVIEW
TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AT 114 KIMBERLY WAY, APN 008-630-044
WHEREAS, on May 31, 2006, the City granted approval of Administrative Site Plan and
Architectural Review (SPAR) for the construction of a single family house at 114 Kimberly Way,
APN 008-630-044; and,
WHEREAS, no appeal was filed within the 14 day appeal period specified in the Zoning
Ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, on January 1, 2007 the City issued a building permit (#20061212) for
construction of a new single family home with attached garage in compliance with plans
approved for Administrative SPAR and applicable building code requirements; and,
WHEREAS, on February 16 and March 7, 2007 the City conducted and approved an on-
site foundation forms and rebar inspections, consistent with plans stamped by the project's
engineer of record and approved by the City's Plan Check Engineer; and,
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2007 a stop work order was issued based on findings that the
building height exceeded the approved building height and building footprint location was not
consistent with approved plans; and,
WHEREAS, a later confirmation from a license surveyor confirmed that the existing
foundation is located consistent with the placement of the original approval and as shown on
plans submitted for modifications; and,
WHEREAS, time extensions have been granted for the applicable building permit
(#20061212), which has not expired and remains active. Consistent with a departmental
interpretation issued by the Planning Manager on August 26, 2009, planning approvals remain
active as long as the associated building permit has not expired. Therefore, the original SPAR
approval (06-SPC-0033) for a single family home at 114 Kimberly Way remains active; and,
WHEREAS, on July 1, 2010 the applicant submitted an application for Administrative SPAR
for modifications to the previously approved plans to reduce the pitch of the roof, reduce upper
floor height, and lower the first floor inside the existing foundation in order to meet the maximum
allowable building height of 24 feet. No changes to the approved footprint or significant design
change from approved plans are proposed; and,
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2010 public notice of administrative action was mailed to all
property owners and residents within 500 feet of the subject property and to all other interested
Planning Commission Resolution No.2011-08 Page 1
parties, and notice of administrative action was published in the Argus Courier on July 8, 2010;
and,
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2010, the City granted approval of Administrative SPAR for
modifications to the previously approved plans; and,
WHEREAS, on October 20, 2010, the City Clerk received a letter of appeal from Jesse
Rhodes; and,
WHEREAS, on December 29, 2010, public notice of the January 11, 2011 appeal hearing
before the Planning Commission was mailed to all property owners and residents within 500 feet
of the subject property and to all other interested parties, and a notice of the January 11, 2011
appeal hearing before the Planning Commission was published in the Argus-Courier on
December 30, 2010.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, based on duly noticed
public hearing on January 11, 2011 and related comments and testimony, fully considered all
evidence presented at the public hearing of this appeal, as well as all oral and written evidence
contained in the full record of proceedings on this matter, and on that basis, denies the appeal
of Jesse Rhodes filed with the City on October 20, 2010 challenging administrative approval of
modification to the previously approved Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a
single-family house located at 114 Kimberly Way, APN 008-630-044 ("the project").
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, based on the evidence and
testimony in the public record and from the public hearings on January 11, 2011, adopts the
following findings and associated conditions of approval of the project as a basis for its denial of
the Appeal:
Findings:
1. The originally approved Site Plan and Architectural Review for construction of a single
family house at 114 Kimberly Way remains active based on extensions granted for the
associated building permit and departmental interpretation issued by the Planning
Manager on August 26, 2009 stating that Community Development planning approvals
remain active as long as the associated building permit has not expired.
2. The Site Plan and Architectural Review being appealed is specific to modifications to the
previously approved plans only.
3. The proposed modifications are consistent with the Implementing Zoning Ordinance and
the Country Club Estates PUD Guidelines.
4. The existing foundation was constructed in compliance with approved plans and was
inspected and approved on site as part of the building permit (#20061212).
5. The adequacy of the existing foundation is evidenced by building permit plans
approved for 114 Kimberly, which were stamped by a licensed engineer, and reviewed
by the City's plan check engineer prior to approval.
Planning Commission Resolution No.2011-08 Page 2
6. Grading and Foundation Plan Review and Special Inspection and Testing
Acknowledgement for the plans have been verified by Terrasearch, Inc.
7. Two on-site inspections were approved by the City's building inspector.
8. The location of the existing foundation has been verified by a licensed surveyor to be
consistent with the building footprint as shown on the originally approved plans.
9. On August 20, 2008 the Highlands Architectural Review Committee conditionally
approved the applicant's revised plans with specific conditions for ensuring that the
building height complies with the 24 foot building height limitation as outlined in the
Country Club Estates PUD.
10. A subsequent letter dated May 12, 2010 from the attorney representing the Highlands
Homeowners Association accepted certification of the benchmark points, which
satisfied the first of the HOA's conditions for approval and gave Mr. Hisen authorization to
continue with construction subject to completion and acceptance of the remaining
conditions, which have been incorporated as conditions of approval below.
11. Prior to issuance of the original building permit or any subsequent authorization to
commence construction, plans are reviewed by the City's plan check engineer for
compliance with the applicable building code requirements.
12. Given the history of the project, the administrative approval has adequately conditioned
the project to ensure compliance with the 24 foot building height limit stipulated in the
Country Club Estates PUD Guidelines.
13. The proposed modifications to the approved project, as conditioned, will not constitute
a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community in that work will be
done in conformance with the California Building Codes and the Performance Standards
of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, and Municipal Code Conditions of Approval.
14. The proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures), which allows for the construction of a single-family residence in a residential
zone.
Conditions of Approval:
1. Applicable conditions of approval for the original SPAR approval (06-SPC-0033) shall be
satisfied.
2. All conditions of approval shall be included on the first sheet of building permit plans.
3. Plans submitted for building permit shall be in substantial conformance with the plans
and materials submitted for Administrative Site Plan and Architectural Review on July 1,
2010 except as modified by the following conditions of approval.
Planning Commission Resolution No.2011-08 Page 3
4. Pursuant to the County Club Estates Guidelines section 4.12, retaining walls require an
approved soils report and planting is required below retaining walls (on the down-slope
side) to reduce the apparent height of the wall. Initial planting shall cover a minimum of
20% of the down-slope side of the wall and shall be designed so as to provide a minimum
of 50 %coverage after five (5) years of growth.
5. Any exterior lighting shall be shown on plans submitted for building permit. All lights
attached to the building shall provide a soft "wash" of light against the wall and shall
compliment building architecture.
6. Construction activities shall limited to Monday through Friday, non-holiday hours of 7:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. per the County Club Estates PUD Guidelines.
7. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its boards,
commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding
against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set
aside, void, or annul any of the approvals of the project, when such claim or action is
brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The
City shall promptly notify the applicants/developers of any such claim, action, or
proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition
shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding
and if the City chooses to do so appellant shall reimburse City for attorney's fees by the
City.
8. Exterior lighting and fencing are not approved as part of this permit. Planning Division
approval on lighting cut sheets shall be required prior to building permit final. Fencing
shall be reviewed through a separate fence permit application.
9. Prior to commencement of construction or lifting of the stop work order, the applicant
shall submit verification from Delta Surveying that the previously submitted topographic
survey dated September 10, 2007 (job #2006-081) accurately reflects current site
conditions for topography.
10. Prior to commencement of construction or lifting of the stop work order, the applicant
shall submit verification from Delta Surveying of the top of foundation elevation taken at
the tour outside corners of the existing foundation and at least two intermediate points
on the long dimension. Additionally, verification shall be submitted for the location of the
four corners of the existing foundation in relation to property lines.
11. Upon completion of each floor level, the surveyor of record shall submit verification that
floor heights are as indicated on approved plans. Such verification shall be submitted
prior to beginning of construction of the next story of the building.
12. Prior to commencement of construction or lifting of the stop work order, the applicant
shall submit three complete construction sets that include all changes and all structural
details for review. Construction sets shall include all architectural plans and structural
plans and details.
Planning Commission Resolution No.2011-08 Page 4
13. Prior to final inspection, the surveyor of record shall verify the finished ridgelines and floors
to be consistent with approved plans. The ridgelines shall not to exceed 24 feet at any
point as measured from adjacent natural grade.
14. Prior to commencement of construction or lifting of the stop work order, the applicant
shall submit for review all foundation changes as constructed, written confirmation from
a licensed geotechnical engineer that the as built foundation conforms to geotechnical
recommendations on file, and written confirmation from the engineer of record that the
as built foundation plans are adequate to support the structure and that the foundation
changes are equal to or better than the original design.
ADOPTED this 11th day of January, 2011, by the following vote:
Commissioner Aye_ - No = Absent Abstain '.
Abercrombie X
Albertson X
2^d Vice Chair Elias X
Herries X
Vice Chair Hurley X
Chair Johansen. X
Pierre X
...�a � � i SI
Curtis Johansen, Chair
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
% i
Geoff Bradley, mmissionSecretary Leslie Thomsen, Assistant City Attorney
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011-08 Page 5