The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - October 3, 2012 G-01 PHI' AGENDA ITEM G1 •• CITY OF LODI ,. COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TM AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider Adopting a Resolution Approving the Planning Commission's Recommendation for 2012 Growth Management Allocations to Permit and Construct 12 Residential Units at 2110 Tienda Drive MEETING DATE: October 3,2012 PREPARED BY: Community Development Department RECOMMENDEDACTION: Public hearing to consider adopting a resolution approving the Planning Commission's recommendation for 2012 Growth Management Allocations to permit and construct 12 residential units at 2110 Tienda Drive. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As part of the City's Growth Management program, the Planning Commission reviews the requests that have been submitted to the City. Following a public hearing, the Commission makes a recommendation for City Council consideration. This public hearing is being held for the City Council to award 12 medium density residential allocations for this year to Mr. John Giannoni. On August 8, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the 2012 Residential Growth Management Development Allocations. At this hearing the Planning Commission reviewed Mr. John Giannoni's application for 12 medium density residential development project at 2112 Tienda Drive. This is the first application the City received for Growth Management Allocation since 2006.The Commission received a staff report; heard the staff presentation; asked questions of staff as well as the applicant, and the general public; heard public testimony in support and in opposition to the application; closed the public hearing, and voted 4-2, with one Commissioner absent, to recommend the City Council approve the applicant's request for 12 medium density growth management allocation units (12 -GM -01). ANALYSIS The proposed project would permit the construction of 12 medium density residential units on .81 -acre parcel located on Tienda Drive, one block north of W. Kettleman Lane. Per the City's Growth Management Ordinance, residential construction development of five or more units must secure Growth Management allocations. The property is a fully improved vacant. lot and allows residential development units up to 35 dwelling units per acre. The area surrounding the project site is fully developed with a variety of single and multi -family residences and office/institutional uses. The site is classified as an in -fill project. The allocation system gives priority through point assignments to projects that reduce impacts on services, infrastructure, and resources. The ordinance sets an annual growth limit of two percent of the City's population, compounded annually. Once the amount of allocation units is figured, the City requires that the allocation units be distributed among housing types as follows; 65 percent low density, 10 percent medium density and 25 percent high density. There are 45 medium density allocation units allocated for 2012; however, the City also has medium density growth management units that were not issued in prior years as shown in Table A below, which leaves a JACommunity DevelopmenflCouncil Communications12012U0-03 PH GM John Bartlam, City Manager "bank of units" from previous years. The 45 medium density allocations available for 2012 will are sufficient to provide for the proposed project. Table A: Growth Mana ement Allocation tory The Growth Management Ordinance includes a priority location area and a point system to assist the City with prioritizing issuance of growth management allocations. The priority location area designates lands available for development and provides development categories of one, two or three, with Priority Area 1 being the first priority area for development. The priority areas are based on availability of city services (e.g., water, wastewater, storm drains, streets, police, fire and parks). The proposed project site is classified as an in -fill project. For scoring purposes in -fill projects are considered Priority Area 1 projects. The point system was established to rate projects based on various project merits in order to determine if one project should be approved before another, particularly if there are more allocation requests than there are available allocations. However, because the City hasn't had growth management allocation requests since 2006, surplus allocation has been accumulated in the amount of 660 medium density available units. The applicant's request for 12 medium density units can be accommodated. The request of 12 units does not require any zoning change. The property is zone R -C -P, Residential, Commercial and Professional, which allows multi -family residences. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use Corridor (MUC). The proposed project is consistent with the existing General Plan designation of Mixed Use Corridor (MUC) and the proposed density of 20 units per acre is within the MUC density range of 7.1-20 dwelling units per acre. The Planning Commission recommended conditions as part of this project call for subsequent development plan review of various specific details of the project to insure quality and compatibility with the surrounding area (e.g. landscape plans, elevations, fencing, walls, public lane surfaces). FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable. AI Kdnra t artlam Community Development Director KB/1 B Attachment: 1. Aerial Map 2. Vicinity Map 3. General Plan Map 4. Planning Commission Staff Reportwith attachments 5. Planning Commission Resolution 6. Planning Commission minutes of August 8,2012 7. Draft Resolution , s, •:�'. �i°s:i LF.`�. � a;<,,,,...,<� `; .,mv:.,:. „t,.w.&t, .. ).....,<.:.'^` :;`a�•'.p ..7 `d3:,a�s;'i�rzsx,'^. ..M. ,. _...�............. -s� L. .<..,, ..::<^.. ... ....: ... ..,,. .. ..aa .... ,.., fix•, ... .. ..<. .'L �Yi, <... ;,. �:. , i...: < , .. <. ..� i.,.� .i:rii>.......:i;"•�k< .. T' ,.y<.: 'v�,:> ma�n�n ` i•. �Y, .�ikn .�� , a � : 1x r;%v: �=•=r:'>xota 4r =�;� ,... .. �...:i: � : 8.9,�a> ^ or:< jj ;.,� �, . x. .. �. .. .. . . ... Y: :: ,: -:, .s.ak � . Yin <:...,., ,. , .. i:xY�- '.:`:;^.:: _ ::1�...,,.. ..: r ......,.'iia... .. ., ,.;� ..,Dense <::.., �. .. ,. .:.'a`.a t:01W-IN, 201. 2 i, _ ,for2:t�1� Low 0.1-7 6,648 2,893 3,482 290 3,772 Medium 7.1-20 1,023 438 615 45 660 High 20.1-30 2,557 0a 2,452 112 2,564 TOTAL 10,228 3,331 6,549 447 4,278 The Growth Management Ordinance includes a priority location area and a point system to assist the City with prioritizing issuance of growth management allocations. The priority location area designates lands available for development and provides development categories of one, two or three, with Priority Area 1 being the first priority area for development. The priority areas are based on availability of city services (e.g., water, wastewater, storm drains, streets, police, fire and parks). The proposed project site is classified as an in -fill project. For scoring purposes in -fill projects are considered Priority Area 1 projects. The point system was established to rate projects based on various project merits in order to determine if one project should be approved before another, particularly if there are more allocation requests than there are available allocations. However, because the City hasn't had growth management allocation requests since 2006, surplus allocation has been accumulated in the amount of 660 medium density available units. The applicant's request for 12 medium density units can be accommodated. The request of 12 units does not require any zoning change. The property is zone R -C -P, Residential, Commercial and Professional, which allows multi -family residences. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use Corridor (MUC). The proposed project is consistent with the existing General Plan designation of Mixed Use Corridor (MUC) and the proposed density of 20 units per acre is within the MUC density range of 7.1-20 dwelling units per acre. The Planning Commission recommended conditions as part of this project call for subsequent development plan review of various specific details of the project to insure quality and compatibility with the surrounding area (e.g. landscape plans, elevations, fencing, walls, public lane surfaces). FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable. AI Kdnra t artlam Community Development Director KB/1 B Attachment: 1. Aerial Map 2. Vicinity Map 3. General Plan Map 4. Planning Commission Staff Reportwith attachments 5. Planning Commission Resolution 6. Planning Commission minutes of August 8,2012 7. Draft Resolution Aerial Map www J' �i a adv o-. •err ; o Axa - .. ... � �� -. -�+ -u � � � �•: .'- --- � - -�. r --...- . -1 r---'u!lyfLL:l-J Lyle �� ' 1,�. , it the -• is � � l -`� � - i - .. --� ..... •� � �} ��. got I Ia j I ViclniN Map Tu rgRI�. ZZ D ' x 76 1179 1164 1151 r �^ Q 1150 65 1210 115T [ i1 7 9 rii LA 1220 1187 i 5 1192 i , $7 1210 n 1 $9 rrliddx?rR1l. 1228 i 1 1 1195 1200 1 9 1 45 legend 39 i336 1 7 1203 1208 1 15 87 fi2fi 1 61 1 r til �_ ti7 n 4T 1244 7 ow 4220 1257 Project She 12 1 123 121 Q 7 1 i jo 1 ar U 1252 72 8 1, 40 12 9 12.24 i S R � � T ol fi3D —Pity City Limit w{ 13kA � i 1i 1 1271 76 1218 _ 1 R 723 1417 131 �� 1 1 1248 7273 E. 127 Q 4 1379 :e 4 Fw> Grk rk N 4nr r rt N41 10l u'1 !ry r Kett [nn n . . 12 pp Q N {54 N .� 17 -1t1� C$ 1:3,298 56Q 0 2 75 550FOM 7W% mep Is a usar Bane aW vIwk awod t m m Irbwwt muppN sloe end Notes is far relarenca . asta "m that appear an d is map may or mry rat kyr 27 7 0 Tiar de nim F�i4_1893_S#atePlere_GeGtarnN l lk_FI PS O+IG3_Frek arcmm. a wart or ativn iia tok la- tWN=027410.1 % 4DQiyarLodi C,�rnfamrbo Sy9bm THMMAP ISNOT TOBEUSED FGR NAVIGATION Led.CA95242 Ag� Ljji?d,.:� tip IN idLik au'll, 121S 1219 2d, IN I -H4 Irss LM !2n 115? CL 1156 1220 0 i, r4l IN3 Cn 12N9 122R U00 I" j:5 tw"nd m 12N. 1�10 4236 1215 74R G&wti Pkm J� 12W QIA �25r 12tr 1220 s2�r 1754 1744 ut c955 124A 12 W 1274 43M e 12CG m 13M 12 F2 1270 1240 '.�2? 1213 Wr m iA 4704 43M Larcvrdft ri to d& AAUP Scaly 144 1 2 3G7 3PFM WR w lmwm mmewd � M r—ft -" . r—, F� PW.— D -d) com w pn—"4 roNod 1W - 4,11 .. 1�rl . T . �H - 45 p . Qr.T . 0 - BE . LKq . E . D POR . -P - I - Q . KNCH CITY OF LODI PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report MEETING DATE: August 8, 2012 APPLICATION NOS: 12 -GM -01 REQUEST: Request for Planning Commission to Recommend to the City Council to approve Growth Management Allocations to permit and construct 12 residential units at 2110 Tienda Drive. (Applicant: John Giannoni; File No: 12 -GM -01) LOCATION: 2110 Tienda Drive (APN: 027-410-19) Lodi, CA 95242 APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: RECOMMENDATION John Giannoni 2111 W. Kettleman Lane, Suite D Lodi, CA 95242 John and Kerry Giannoni 2960 Applewood Drive Lodi, CA 95242 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the request of John Giannoni recommending that the City Council award 12 medium density growth management allocation units (12 -GM -01), subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. PROJECT/AREA DESCRIPTION General Plan Designation Mixed Use Corridor Zoning Designation R -C -P, Residential, Commercial and Professional Project Size 0.81 acre (35,284 sq. ft) SUMMARY The proposed project would permit the construction of 12 medium density residential units on .81 -acre parcel located on Tienda Drive, one block north of W. Kettleman Lane. Per the City's Growth Management Ordinance, residential construction development of 5 or more units must secure Growth Management allocations. The property is a fully improved vacant lot and allows residential development units up to 35 dwelling units per acre. The area surrounding the project site is fully developed with a variety of single and multi -family residences and office/institutional uses. J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF REPORTS\2012\8-8-12 Giannoni Growth Management ADJACENT ZONING DESIGNATIONS AND LAND USES GENERAL PLAN ZONING CLASSIFICATION EXISTING LAND USE North Low Density Residential R-2, Single Family Res. Residential uses South Mixed Use Corridor R -C -P, Residential, Commercial, Professional Office Use East Mixed Use Corridor R -C -P, Residential Commercial, Professional Church West Mixed Use Corridor R -C -P, Residential, Commercial, Professional Recently constructed duplexes SUMMARY The proposed project would permit the construction of 12 medium density residential units on .81 -acre parcel located on Tienda Drive, one block north of W. Kettleman Lane. Per the City's Growth Management Ordinance, residential construction development of 5 or more units must secure Growth Management allocations. The property is a fully improved vacant lot and allows residential development units up to 35 dwelling units per acre. The area surrounding the project site is fully developed with a variety of single and multi -family residences and office/institutional uses. J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF REPORTS\2012\8-8-12 Giannoni Growth Management BACKGROUND The Planning Department received one residential growth management application for the year 2012. This is the first growth management application received since 2006. There are three other separate projects that were granted allocations in 2006 by the City Council through the use of Development Agreements that grant multi-year allocations that began in 2007. These projects are Reynolds Ranch, Southwest Gateway and Westside developments. The latter two projects are seeking to dissolve their Development Agreements. In the event the Development Agreements are dissolved, their growth allocations would be void and each project would have to submit a growth management application going forward. The proposed development, known as The Villas at Sunwest, is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the project site. The project includes a total of 12 attached single-family residential lots ranging from 3,092 to over 4,392 square feet in size. The project is located on approximately 0.81 acre (35,284 sq. ft) bounded generally by Tienda Drive on the north and an office development on the south, with Kettleman Lane located just south of the project site. The site is vacant lot with most off -off site improvements, including utility lines, have been installed. ANALYSIS The City Council adopted the Growth Management Allocation Ordinance (GMAO) in 1991 to regulate the growth, location, amount and timing of residential developments in the City. The GMAO applies to any new residential development project dwelling that adds five (5) or more new housing stock to the City. The GMAO does not regulate non-residential development, senior citizen housing, residential remodels or additions, or demolition and construction of new homes on the same site. Second residential units, condominium conversions and special care/senior facilities are also exempt. The GMAO allocation award is based on a competitive permit allocation system with points given based on site specific resource protection measures. The allocation system gives priority through point assignments to projects that reduce impacts on services, infrastructure, and resources. The ordinance sets an annual growth limit of two percent of the City's population, compounded annually. Once the amount of allocation units is figured, the City requires that the allocation units be distributed among housing types as follows; 65 percent low density, 10 percent medium density and 25 percent high density. For example, the following explains the 447 units available for 2012: 1. Calculate two percent of the City's current population: 62,825 x 2% = 1,257. 2. Divide 1,257 by the average number of persons per household 1,257/2.812 = 447 3. Divide the 474 units into the 3 housing types: 65% low density = 290 units 10% medium density = 45 units 25% high density = 112 units As indicated above in the background discussion, the present project is being reviewed for growth management allocations for 2012. There are also three projects that received allocations through Developments Agreements (Southwest Gateway, Westside and Reynolds Ranch development). Southwest Gateway and Westside are entirely residential development of various densities and types. The Reynolds Ranch project is a mixed-use development with various types and densities of residential development. Southwest Gateway and Westside projects are on -hold due to the economy and no allocation has been utilized. Extensive commercial development activities have occurred at the Reynolds Ranch project. The residential component of the project has not begun and no allocation has been utilized. The applicant, Mr. Giannoni, has submitted application for a total of 12 medium density growth management allocation units (8-20 units/acre). There are 45 medium density allocation units allocated for 2012; however, the City also has medium density growth management units that were not issued in J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF REPORTS\2012\8-8-12 Giannoni Growth Management 2 prior years as shown in Table A below, which leaves a "bank of units" from previous years. The 45 medium density allocations available for 2012 will are sufficient to provide for the proposed project. Table A: Growth Management Allocation History a There have been high density allocations granted over the past 20 years; however, they have expired or withdrawn prior to issuance of building permits. Priority Location Map and Point System The Growth Management Ordinance includes a priority location map and a point system to assist the City with prioritizing issuance of growth management allocations. The priority location map designates lands available for development and provides development categories of one, two or three, with Priority Area 1 being the first priority area for development. The priority areas are based on availability of city services (e.g., water, wastewater, storm drains, streets, police, fire and parks). The proposed project site is classified as an in -fill project and is not included in the Priority Area map. However, for scoring purposes in -fill projects are considered Priority Area 1 projects. The point system was established to rate projects based on various project merits in order to determine if one project should be approved before another, particularly if there are more allocation requests than there are available allocations. Since this is the only allocation request submitted, and there is surplus of inventory accumulated over the years, scoring methodology wasn't performed as it was unnecessary. Growth Management Allocation Recommendation The proposed project site is located in In -fill location. The project is in an area that is fully developed with residential and office/commercial uses. The surrounding uses are suitable and consistent with the type of development proposed by the applicant. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the request for 12 medium density growth management allocation units for the project subject to the conditions outlined in the attached resolution. It should be noted that securing the 12 growth management allocations does not guarantee that this number of units can be built. The applicant must still demonstrate, via SPARC review process, they can build a 12 -unit project that meets all City development and design requirements. Pursuant to City Code § 17.81.030, residential building proposed to be erected in the R -C -P Zoning District are subject to SPARC review and approval. Staff has proposed a condition requiring the applicant submit a detailed development plan showing exact dimensions and building details. General Plan and Zoning Conformance The request of 12 -units does not require any zoning change. The property is zone R -C -P, Residential, Commercial and Professional, which allows multi -family residences. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use Corridor (MUC). The proposed project is consistent with the existing General Plan designation of Mixed Use Corridor (MUC) and the proposed density of 20 -units per acre is within the MUC density range of 7.1-20 dwelling units per acre. Discussion of Proposed Development Plan Prior to the approval of the project, a development plan must be reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Once approved, the project site must be developed in accordance with the approved development plan. The applicant has submitted a conceptual development plan depicting the proposed layout and design for the 12 unit project. The Planning Commission can approve GM allocations based on this plan if they feel the proposal is generally J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF REPORTS\2012\8-8-12 Giannoni Growth Management Available Allocations Density Scheduled from 1989- 2012 Granted from 1989- 2011 Remaining from 1989- 2011 2%Allocations for 2012 Total Available for 2012 Low 0.1-7 6,648 2,893 3,482 290 3,772 Medium 7.1-20 1,023 438 615 45 660 High 20.1-30 2,557 0a 2,452 112 2,564 TOTAL 10,228 3,331 6,549 1 447 1 4,278 a There have been high density allocations granted over the past 20 years; however, they have expired or withdrawn prior to issuance of building permits. Priority Location Map and Point System The Growth Management Ordinance includes a priority location map and a point system to assist the City with prioritizing issuance of growth management allocations. The priority location map designates lands available for development and provides development categories of one, two or three, with Priority Area 1 being the first priority area for development. The priority areas are based on availability of city services (e.g., water, wastewater, storm drains, streets, police, fire and parks). The proposed project site is classified as an in -fill project and is not included in the Priority Area map. However, for scoring purposes in -fill projects are considered Priority Area 1 projects. The point system was established to rate projects based on various project merits in order to determine if one project should be approved before another, particularly if there are more allocation requests than there are available allocations. Since this is the only allocation request submitted, and there is surplus of inventory accumulated over the years, scoring methodology wasn't performed as it was unnecessary. Growth Management Allocation Recommendation The proposed project site is located in In -fill location. The project is in an area that is fully developed with residential and office/commercial uses. The surrounding uses are suitable and consistent with the type of development proposed by the applicant. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the request for 12 medium density growth management allocation units for the project subject to the conditions outlined in the attached resolution. It should be noted that securing the 12 growth management allocations does not guarantee that this number of units can be built. The applicant must still demonstrate, via SPARC review process, they can build a 12 -unit project that meets all City development and design requirements. Pursuant to City Code § 17.81.030, residential building proposed to be erected in the R -C -P Zoning District are subject to SPARC review and approval. Staff has proposed a condition requiring the applicant submit a detailed development plan showing exact dimensions and building details. General Plan and Zoning Conformance The request of 12 -units does not require any zoning change. The property is zone R -C -P, Residential, Commercial and Professional, which allows multi -family residences. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use Corridor (MUC). The proposed project is consistent with the existing General Plan designation of Mixed Use Corridor (MUC) and the proposed density of 20 -units per acre is within the MUC density range of 7.1-20 dwelling units per acre. Discussion of Proposed Development Plan Prior to the approval of the project, a development plan must be reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Once approved, the project site must be developed in accordance with the approved development plan. The applicant has submitted a conceptual development plan depicting the proposed layout and design for the 12 unit project. The Planning Commission can approve GM allocations based on this plan if they feel the proposal is generally J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF REPORTS\2012\8-8-12 Giannoni Growth Management acceptable. However, prior to final approval of an actual construction permit, the applicant must submit a final development plan (SPARC application) that details all the required components of the project with exact dimensions, architectural details and landscape plans. This plan must meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance, including setbacks, parking area dimensions, lot coverage, etc. The development plan shows 12 townhouse units arranged in two rows facing each other. Each unit will have 1,710 square feet of living space on two floors with half the units having an attached 400 square foot two -car garage and the rest having a one -car garage and one -car uncovered parking space adjacent to the units. Access to the property will be from a driveway from Tienda Drive connected to a central driveway providing access to the individual garages. The driveway is a dead-end access so vehicles will have to turn around to exit the property. The plan illustrates a property lines separating each unit and also forming a common facilities such as roofs, driveway, etc. Detailed site analyses and review will be performed when the applicant submits a SPARC/Development plan review application. The City Council has final action on the requests for Growth Management Allocations; however, all growth management applications requests must first be reviewed by the Planning Commission with a recommendation forwarded to the City Council. Therefore, staff recommends that unless additional or contrary information is received during the public hearing the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Growth Management Allocation application (12 -GM -01) to permit 12 growth management allocation units.. Because the City hasn't had growth management allocation requests since 2006, surplus allocation has been accumulated in the amount of 660 medium density available units. The applicant's request for 12 medium density units can be accommodated. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESMENT The project qualifies for a CEQA Categorical Exemption, Section 15332, In -Fill Development Project, Class 32. The project is consistent with the General Plan, is located in the City limits, is less than 5 - acres in size and is surrounded by existing urban uses. The project site is not a habitat for any rare or endangered species of plant or wildlife, and the project will not create a significant environmental impact. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A legal notice for the Growth Management Allocation Application was published on July 27, 2012 in the Lodi News Sentinel. Twenty eight (28) public hearing notices were sent to all property owners of record within a 300 -foot radius of the subject property. ALTERNATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS • Recommend Approval of the Request with Alternate Conditions • Recommend Denial of the Request • Continue the Request Respectfully Submitted, Concurred by: Immanuel Bereket Konradt Bartlam Associate Planner Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Site Plan 4. Growth Management Table 5. Draft Resolution for Growth Management Allocations J:\Community Development\Planning\STAFF REPORTS\2012\8-8-12 Giannoni Growth Management 4 weFCane to The Villas @ Sunwest A Community by Giannoni Development FRONT ELEVATION THE VILLAS AT SUW05T SUNWE5T ' TIENDA DRIVE C I TY OF LODI, CALIFORNIA UNIT "G" E r_EX151TNG BLOCKWALL PRELI M I NARY PLANT LEGEND Symbol Sue Botanical Name Common Name Quanta TREES SHRUB5 GROUNDCOVERS AND ACCENT5 • ,r•^ ., 5 Gal Abel. 3—drflo. GlossyAbelu I Gal Met- vegeta Fortnight Wy 15 Gal Lageretroemia ind— Crape Myrtle 5 Gal Berbens t 'Atropurpurea' Red-Leaied Japanese Barberry I Gal IYcu.4 pumila Creeping Pg 15 Gal Mstach. ch-- Chinese PistacHa 5 Gal 6uxus Japonicus Japanese Boxwood 1 Gal Gazan. hybnd (clumping Clumping Gamma 5 Gal Coleonama p 'Sunset Golf Gold Breath of Heaven I Gal Hemerocalha'B lla de rd Day L y 15 Gal Pyrus c 'Krautar Vesuvius' Plowenng Pear 5 Gal Evonymus u 'Aurso•Margmata' Gold Leafed Euorrymus I Gal Myoporum parvlFollum Myopomm 15 Gal Ulmus pamfol. Chinese Evergreen Elm 5 Gal Lavandula dentate French lavender I Gal Solanum Jasminol 1., Pbtato V- 5 Gal Loropetalum'Raalabariy Chinese rnngs tower I Gal Trachelospannum Jam=des Star Jasmine 5 Gal Phormmm t. 'Bror.e Baht/New Zealand flax 5 Gal Pittgspwar orum t Wheelers Df Dwarf .i'Z 5 Gal Rhaphwreplb a '5pnngt4me' Ind. Hawthorn THE VILLAS AT SUNWEST _ PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN 5CALe I" ® la „�'; ;„� m <;�•�S�a A COMMUNITY BY GIANNONI DEVELOPMENT MARCH 2, 201 21 1 1 W. KETTLEMAN LANE SUITE D, LODI, CA 95242 DESIGrrcoiJ� a� 209.570.8700 21'10° I° 21'-0" I" al' -O° I• 31'-0^ I' 21=0° 1.-.2110° 101-6.10'-b° 10'16" 10'16' 1016" 1 J 2 OAR 6ARA&H a 4 oo AR &AR"E 1 vl ; -1e 10'-6 FO o o �� O he 100 1 I I I - I - 1 1 I 1 - d 1 KITOHE,J TIM 91HIC Dr�J TILE - 1 �, 101-,�,11• I I • 1 tj 1 ---------- I ________ I I I I IJ -Li ❑ 1 I I I I I � I I 1 9 I L_F--IJ 1 1 O EJ 11 1 1- 1 1 -------------- 1 1 I I � O 11 1 1 --- 11 O� I I 1 1 1 1 u+Dat 51.415•- 1 1 HALT. ---iJ 11 1 1 I I O I I I I I i 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 I I 11 O 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 flEl 1- I I I 11 O I 1. I I i t 1 1 L 1 1 I l I I ('�---1� I I l i � I I ('� I I 1 1 11 ❑ I I I I I I O I� Ito I 1 F I [90 I. 1 11 1 I -J -ENTRY I I a.. n� L 40 80 S.H. 40(2J—WsNO O 5,$. ,'-7�' 9'=11�' g_11. 3,-�I.. 8'-Il�. .4._�l. 9��_ g�� • 216" - I" 21'-0° 2110° 1° FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE, 114" 7 ATII` 1101, 6411 act PT. w 0 5EGOND FLOOR PLAN 9GAL8� I/4' � I' -O'• tm Irc, 1081 80. FT. 1110 so. PT. - TOTAL .7iWAk Wevilig ** Sep -89 50,991 1,020 2.795 397 258 40 99 Sep -90 52,011 2.00% 1,040 2.806 404 263 40 101 Sep -91 53,051 2.00% 1,061 2.817 403 262 40 101 Jan -92 53,186 0.25% 1,064 2.828 399 259 40 100 Jan -93 53,701 0.97% 1,074 2.839 401 261 40 100 Jan -94 53,903 0.38% 1,078 2.850 402 261 40 101 Jan -95 54,694 1.47% 1,094 2.861 406 264 41 102 Jan -96 54,473 -0.40% 1,089 2.872 409 266 41 102 Jan -97 54,812 0.62% 1,096 2.883 412 268 41 103 Jan -98 55,681 1.59% 1,114 2.894 415 270 42 104 Jan -99 56,926 2.24% 1,139 2.905 423 275 42 106 Jan -00 57,935 1.77% 1,159 2.916 428 278 43 107 Jan -01 58,600 1.15% 1,172 2.927 432 281 43 108 Jan -02 59,431 1.42% 1,189 2.938 433 282 43 108 Jan -03 60,521 1.83% 1,210 2.949 437 284 44 109 Jan -04 60,769 0.41% 1,215 2.959 440 286 44 110 Jan -05 62,467 2.79% 1,249 62,817 0.56% 1,256 62,820 0.00% 1,256 2.970 448 291 45 112 Jan -06 2.789 419 272 42 105 Jan -07 2.790 450 293 45 113 2.792 454 Jan -08 63,362 0.86% 1,267 63,313 -0.08% 1,266 63,549 0.37% 1,271 62,344 -1.90% 1,247 62,825 0.77% 1,257 295 45 113 Jan -09 2.745 461 300 46 115 Jan -10 2.762 460 299 46 115 Jan -11 2.791 447 290 45 112 Jan -12 2.812 447 290 45 112 TOTALS TO 2012: 10,228 6,648 1,023 2,557 CITY COUNCIL AWARDED BUILDING PERMIT ALLOCATIONS 1989 -PRESENT TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS (1989 TO 2012)= 10,228 Available Single Family Residences for allocation PROJECT 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 ALLOCATION TOTALS ALMOND WOOD ESTATES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 ALMOND NORTH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 BANG'S RANCH 34 35 35 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 BECKMAN PROPERTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 BRIDGETOWN 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 51 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 CENTURY MEADOWS 1 16 16 16 0 0 0 52 55 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 CENTURY MEADOWS 2 25 26 25 0 29 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165 CENTURY MEADOWS 3 24 24 25 0 29 0 51 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 203 CENTURY MEADOWS 4 29 29 29 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 COLVIN RANCH 20 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 JOHNSON RANCH 2 43 43 43 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 173 KENNETH TATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 KIRST PROPERTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 LEGACY ESTATES 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 141 •D LODI WEST 26 27 27 80 55 69 0 0 53 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 378 LUCKEY/LACKYARD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 MILLSBRIDGE 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 PARISIS PROPERTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 PERLEGOS PROPERTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 PROF. CONSTRUCTORS INC. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 RICHARDS RANCH *** 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 RIVERPOINTE 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 SASAKI PROPERTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 SUNWEST XIV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 THAYER PROPERTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 TSUTAOKA PROPERTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 TOWNE RANCH 35 36 36 56 52 151 37 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 415 VINTAGE OAKS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 VINTNER'S SQUARE 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 258 1 263 1 262 259 204 1 318 1 266 1 265 1 236 1 2 17 1 103 1 151 1 0 209 1 80 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,893 MEDIUM DENSITY MEDIUM DENSITY (10,228* 10%) = 1,023 Available Medium Density Residences for allocation PROJECT 1989 1990 1991 1992 1,022.80 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 ALLOCATION 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 TOTALS BANG'S RANCH ** 18 18 1 0 1 0 L 0 1 -36 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6m BRIDGEHAVEN CLUFF, LLC 22 0 22 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 LALAZAR ESTATES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 LODI ESTATES ** 0 0 22 0 0 -22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LODI WEST * 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 0 0 -57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MILLS AVENUE TOWN HOMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 NEUSCHAFFER PROPERTY *** 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 SASAKI PROPERTY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 SUNWEST GARDEN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 WINCHESTER WOODS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 WINE & ROSES HOMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 WOODHAVEN PARK 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 MILLER RANCH DEV. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 01 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 Kathy Haring (Muir Wood) Taj Khan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 19 38 65 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 438 —11 40 40 28 1 0 1 132 1 -58 1 0 0 1 118 1 -104 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 132 * In'93 the Planning Commission awarded 40, 1994 medium density allocations to the Lodi West project. ** The Bangs Ranch and Lodi Estates projects each were awarded single family allocations in place of their medium density allocations. *** The Neuschaffer Property project was awarded 154 allocations in 2003 but only used 80 leaving a balance of 74. **** The Miller Ranch Development project was awarded 65 allocations in 2005 (45 from the 2005 schedule and 20 from unused allocations from previous years) Available High Density Residences for allocationII 2557 ALLOCATION PROJECT 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 TOTALS BENNETT & COMPTON IF -99T 45 1 0 0 1 -144 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IF -9-9F45 1 0 0 1 -144 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F ----o IF ----o IF ----o IF ----o IF ----o IF ----o IF ----o 1 0 * The Bennett and Compton project was awarded 75 medium density allocations under the project name of Woodhaven Park. RECEIVED AUG01 2012 July 30,2012 ;OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT Community Development Director PO BOX 3006 Lodi, CA 95241 .=tom 3a. RE: GIANNON1 12 unit residential Propgol. File No: 12 -GM -01 Dear Sirs: As homeowners in one of the nicest neighborhoods in Lodi we are asking that you NOT consider the above proposal. We are AGAINST the idea that Mr. Gla nnoni build at the end cfourstreet a multi- unit. Not onlywill it increasetraffic and noise butthe quality of the neighborhood wi I I be impacted by this proposal. It is our opinion that the quality of his build projects are notalways to our standard. Why not continue to maintain the quality of this area in an upscale way ratherthan down grading it?We understand development for ourtown and as Raget Park developsandthe proposedfuture cottages for seniors, we can continueto have that quality neighborhood without a 12 unit apartment! Respectfully submitted., 4 , John and Vicki Fitzhugh 1239 Salzburg Lane Lodi, CA 95242 Kari Chadwick From: Rad Bartlam Sent: Wednesday, August 08,2012 9:29 AM To: Susan Lake; dmakin@kochmembrane.com cc: Kari Chadwick; Immanuel Bereket Subject: RE: Wednesday Planning Commission Meeting Dave, First, I did not have a conversation with your wife regarding this project. I did see her at the Rotary meeting this past Monday. She stated that she opposed the project. I did not reply. The public hearing notices are twofold as required by State law. We advertise in the Lodi News Sentinel a minimum of 10 days prior to the hearing. We also send a notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject parcel. I have not made the calculation as to the distance your property is from the site, but will today. I know for a fact others in your neighborhood have received this notice as we have received calls about the project. The proposal before the Planning Commission tonight is to recommend approval of a Growth Management Allocation for 12 residential units. The Planning Commission's recommendation is to the City Council. This is the required first step in developing a residential project of more than five units pursuant to the City's long standing growth management program. The Planning Commission action DOES NOT approve the project, design or any other potential requests. Those would need to occur after allocations have been granted. For this project, a SPARC application will be required which would consider the design of the project including site, parking, setbacks, colors and materials. I would not expect this to occur until late this calendar year or early next assuming the City Council grants the allocation and the applicant moves forward with the project. Additionally, the applicant has made it clear to staff that he intends to propose a subdivision map in order to create lots in order to sell each unit. This Parcel Map could be entertained at the same time as a SPARC request. Finally, I will provide this correspondence to the Planning Commission. They certainly have the ability to continue the request to a later date should they see fit to provide additional opportunity for public review. I would also note and encourage you and your neighbors to review the application personally either at the Community Development counter at City Hall or on-line at the City of Lodi web page. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions/concerns. Thanks, Rad Bartlam City Manager -----Original Message ----- From: Susan Lake Sent: Wed 8/8/2012 7:36 AM To: Rad Bartlam Subject: FW: Wednesday Planning Commission Meeting From: Akin, David[mailto:dmakin@kochmembrane.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 12:13 AM To: Susan Lake Cc: Brenda Akin Subject: Wednesday Planning Commission Meeting 0 Vitt'", 4or ?A,..Z. City Manager Bartlam; Rad, I heard of a Planning Commission meeting to vote on a proposal for high density apartments located near my residence by way of a flyer on my doorstep Saturday. While Brenda, my wife, told me she had talked to you and you stated it had been posted it the Sentinel "several weeks ,ago", may I remind you that not all of us read the Sentinel on a daily basis, nor pay attention to the City announcements. I do read the paper, but I guess I am guilty of overlooking this announcement, as , apparently, many others did the same. The point of this message is not to express opinion for or against this proposal, since I have not had time to do so, and I consider three working days not ample to be prepared to form an opinion, one way or another, especially when out of town for the week (Argentina) I realize you must proceed with the Planning Commission meeting Wednesday, but I do not know if it is an agenda item for discussion or vote. If it is an action item calling for a vote, I respectively ask that the vote be postponed until the next scheduled or special meeting so that further study of the project and preparation can be made by me and many others that did not see any announcement in the newspaper. One further note; the last time an issue of this consequence came to home owners in this neighborhood with a stake in the outcome, we received a formal letter from the City notifying us well in advance of a meeting (Roget Park). Why was this not repeated on this occasion? Please allow the neighborhood to respond when all facts are known and proper opinions formed by postponing a vote. Regards - David M. Akin (408) 888-2125 dmakin@kochmembrane.com David M. Akin Food and Life Sciences Koch Membrane Systems Phone: (408) 888-2125; Fax (209) 333-8115 dmakin@kochmembrane.com www.kochmembrane.com PA RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 12-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LODI RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST OF MR. JOHN GIANNONI FOR 12 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT UNITS AT 2110 TIENDA DRIVE. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi has heretofore held a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the requested Growth Management Development Plan as required by Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 15.34; and WHEREAS, on May 31,2012, the City of Lodi received an applicationfrom Mr. John Giannoni for Growth Management Allocations to permit and construct 12 dwelling units at 2110 Tienda Drive; and WHEREAS, the project proponent is Mr. John Giannoni 2111 West Kettieman Lane, Suite D, Lodi, CA 95242; and WHEREAS, property owners of record are John and Kerry Giannoni, 2960 Applewood Drive, Lodi, CA, 95242; and WHEREAS, the projectsite is at 2110 Tienda Drive, Lodi, CA 95242 (APN: 027-410-19); and WHEREAS, the City General Plan 2010 designates the project site as Mixed Use Corridor; and WHEREAS, the City's Municipal Code classifies the project as R -C -P, Residential, Commercial and Professional Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the General Plan land use designation of Mixed Use Corridor and R -C -P Zoning District permit residential development density range of 7.1-20 dwelling units per acre; and WHEREAS, the request is for approval of 12 Medium Density Residential Growth ManagementAl locations for a 12 -unit, proposed as a two -phased project; and WHEREAS, as required by the Lodi Municipal Code Section 17.81.030 (A), future developments and construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and, if necessary, by Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of a building permit; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the approval of this request have occurred; and NOW BE IT FOUND, as follows, by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi, based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the staff report, project file, written and oral testimony, makes the following findings: 1. The required public hearing by the Planning Commission was duly advertised and held in a manner prescribed by law. 2. The project is found to be categorically exempt according to the standard exemption of CEQA Section 15332, Class 32. — In -Fill Development Projects. The project is consistent with the general plan and zoning, is less than 5 -acres in size, is within the City and surrounded by development, there is no habitatvalue, approval of the projectwill not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and the project will be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project is exempt from further review under CEQA. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures have been required. 3. The proposed design and improvement of the site will be designed to be consistent with all applicable standards adopted by the City in that the project, as conditioned, shall conform to the standards and improvements mandated by the City of Lodi Public Works Department Standards and Specifications, and Zoning Ordinance. 4. The standard size, shape and topography of the site are physically suitable for a medium density residential development in that the site is generally flat and has no unusual or extraordinary topographic features. 5. The proposed density of 20 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Growth Management Elements that limits the density of the project site to a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre. 6. The proposal is compatible with surrounding developments, zoning and land uses. 7. The site is suitable for the type of development proposed by the project in that the site can be served by all public utilities and creates design solutions for storm water, tEk and air quality issues. 8. The design of the proposed project and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that all public improvements will be built per City standards and all private improvementswill be built per the California Building Code. 9. The design of the proposed project and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that all public improvements will be built per City standards and all private improvements will be built per the California Building Code. 10. The project allows for the orderly development of Lodi in that the Land Use and Growth Management Element calls for the development of the site at a density of 7.1 to 20.0 dwelling units per acre and the allocation of units proposed sets a density cf 8.2 dwelling units per acre. 11. The Development Plan complies with the requirements of Section 15.34.070 of the Growth Management Plan for Residential Development Ordinance. 12. No new impacts were identified in the public testimonies that were not addressed as normal conditions of project approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DETERMINEDAND RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi hereby recommends that the City Council award Mr. John Giannoni 12 medium density growth management allocation units, subject to the following development conditions and standards: 1. The property owner and/or developer and/or successors in interest and management shall, at their sole expense, defend, indemnify and hold harmless fhe City cf Lodi, its agents, officers, directors and employees, from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses, or expenses of every type and description, including but not limited to payment of attorneys' fees and costs, by reason of, or arising out of, this development approval. The obligation to defend, indemnify and hold harmless shall include, but is not limited to, any action to arbitrate, attack, review, set aside, void or annul this development approval on any grounds whatsoever. The City of Codi shall promptly notify the developer of any such claim, action, or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission shall not constitute an authorization to begin any construction. The proposed residential development plan shall be submitted for Planning Commission/SPARC review and approval. The said plan shall comply with all applicable zoning and design standards adopted by the City prior to issuance of any construction permits. This will require the applicant to submit a detailed development plan that shows the exact dimensions and building details. The plan must 2 show that the proposed number of units can be built on the property and meet all City development requirements. 3. The property owner and/or developer and/or successors in interest and management shall submit for approval by the City all required condominium map and related documents to create legal parcels. 4. All applicable state statutes, and local ordinances, including all applicable Building and Fire Code requirements for hazardous materials shall apply to the project. In an event of a conflict, the strictest law or regulation shall apply. 5. Any fees due the City of Lodi for processing this project shall be paid to the City within thirty (30) calendar days of final action by the approval authority. Failure to pay such outstanding fees within the time specified shall invalidate any approval or conditional approval granted. No permits, site work, or other actions authorized by this action shall be processed by the City, nor permitted, authorized or commenced until all outstanding fees are paid to the City. 6. No variance from any City of Lodi adopted code, policy or specification is granted or implied by this approval. Dated: August 8,2012 certify that Resolution No. 12-14 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Lodi at a regular meeting held on August 8, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Cummins. Hennecke, Jones, and Chair Olson NOES: Commissioners: Heinitz and Kiser ABSENT: Commissioners: Kirsten ATTEST Secre r , Mainning Commission LODI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2012 1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL The Regular Planning Commission meeting of August 8, 2012, was called to order by Chair Olson at 7:00 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners — Cummins, Heinitz, Hennecke, Jones, Kirsten, Kiser, and Chair Olson Absent: Planning Commissioners — Kirsten (arrived at 8:08 pm) Also Present: Community Development Director Konradt Bartlam, Associate Planner Immanuel Bereket, City Attorney Stephen Schwabauer, and Administrative Secretary Kari Chadwick 2. MINUTES "July 11, 2012" MOTION /VOTE: The Planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Kiser, Hennecke second, approved the Minutes of July 11, 2012 as written. (Commissioners Cummins and Jones abstain because they were not in attendance of the subject meeting) 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Olson announced that Item 3c will be heard first due to the amount if interest that has been expressed for the other two items. a) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the Community Development Department, Chair Olson called for the public hearing to consider the request for Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council to Approve Growth Management Allocations to Permit and Construct 12 Residential Units at 2110 Tienda Drive. (Applicant: John Giannoni; File No: 12 -GM -01) Associate Planner Bereket gave a brief PowerPoint presentation based on the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the request for the Planning Commission to recommend that the City Council approve twelve Growth Management Allocations. Commissioner Hennecke asked how long that parcel has been zoned R -C -P. Director Bartlam stated that it has had that zoning since its annexation more than fifteen years ago. Commissioner Heinitz asked if this parcel was already approved for nine units. Director Bartlam stated that that is correct. Commissioner Kiser asked if these are going to be built as condominiums or apartments. Director Bartlam stated that is a good question for the applicant. The applicant has indicated that he will be submitting a tentative map and splitting the units to be sold individually. Hearing Opened to the Public • John Giannoni Jr., applicant, came forward to answer questions. Mr. Giannoni stated that the plan will be to build twelve townhouses that will be for owner occupied. This is Page 2 of 8 March 14th 2012 PC Minutes Continued going to be a PD not a PUD. There will not be any carports involved with the site plan. The plan is to have a piazza in the middle. • Commissioner Heinitz asked Mr. Gianonni to explain what a PD and PUD are. Mr. Gianonni stated that this plan is a PD because of the individual lots. There will not be any shared walls involved in the dwelling units. All common areas will be on the exterior. • Commissioner Kiser asked if the units will be built with zero lot lines and how the maintenance agreements for the common areas will work. Mr. Gianonni stated that the CC&R's that will regulate the common areas have already been drafted. • Loel Flemmer, Lodi resident, came forward to object to the density twelve allocations would cause. He does not think that the project will live up to the current standards of the neighborhood, based on what has been submitted at this time. • Roger Barker, Lodi resident, came forward to object to the number of allocations. Mr. Barker stated that twelve units are too many for this parcel. He also feels that there are many safety issues associated with the proposed project. He feels that a second driveway would help to alleviate the safety hazards with the dead end driveway that splits the units. Anything that is built should be of equal or higher standard than what is currently in the neighborhood. • Commissioner Hennecke stated that the Commission's focus tonight has nothing to do with what the exterior is going to look like and encouraged Mr. Barker to return to the Commission when the development plans are brought forward. • Commissioner Kiser asked if the Fire Department has looked at this to determine if twelve units can fit on the property and allow safety equipment to access the rear units. He is concern about approving twelve units if there will be a safety issue. Mr. Bartlam stated that twelve units are not being approved with this application. Twelve allocations are being approved. The applicant will need to come back with development and SPARC plans and show that twelve units will work on the property before the building of the dwelling units can move forward to the next step. These are the plans that Fire as well as the other departments will review and then those comments will be brought before the Commission for approval. • Mr. Barker asked why allocate twelve units if you don't know if they will fit. • Fred Baker, Lodi resident, came forward to object to the number of allocations. Mr. Baker stated that he was in support of the original nine units that was approved for this parcel and would like to see only nine units allocated. Commissioner Heinitz asked if there was a lot line adjustment to accommodate his project next door to this parcel. Mr. Baker stated that the original plan had nine units on each side of the private driveway and they were mirror images of each other. The plan for the west parcel then changed to have only eight units, four duplexes, on four parcels. • Suzanne Burns, Lodi resident, came forward to object to the project. Ms. Burns does not believe that this project will have a positive impact on the neighborhood. • Brenda Akin, Lodi resident, came forward to object to the number of allocations. Safety for the seniors and children in this neighborhood are Ms Akin's major concerns. The traffic is already busy and would like to see a traffic report done and distributed to the neighborhood. Public Portion of Hearina Closed • Commissioner Heinitz stated that this has been looked at before with nine allocations and it was going to be a tight fit then. Now trying to fit twelve units on the same if not smaller parcel is relevant. 2 Page 3 of 8 March 14th 2012 PC Minutes Continued • Commissioner Cummins asked for the definition of Medium Density. Director Bartlam stated that the definition according to the General Plan is eight to twenty units per acre. The property as proposed with twelve units comes in at about 9.2 units per acre. Cummins stated that Tienda has always been a busy street and will not be anything but a busy street. • Commissioner Kiser stated that this has been looked at before and doesn't want to keep adding to a problem such as traffic if it isn't necessary. Chair Olson asked for clarification on the allocation process being a maximum of twelve then the applicant goes back to his office and draws it and then brings it back for approval. Director Bartlam stated that that is correct. It has been six years since staff and the Commission have been through the Growth Management Allocation process. He stated that if this were an application for twelve single family lots to be allocated the Commission wouldn't see the development plan until early next year. Bartlam stated that there are a number of projects that have been given more allocations than they needed or used. • Commissioner Hennecke stated his appreciation for the fact that someone is expressing a desire to build something. He also added that the applicant will still have to bring the actual development plan back to staff for review, then the Commission will get another look at it and if it doesn't look right at that time it can still be denied. • Director Bartlam stated that 660 allocations exist, there is no competition for the units and he is the only application in for this year, there is no reason why he should not be able to move forward to the next level. MOTION / VOTE: The Planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Jones, Hennecke second, approved the request of the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council to Approve Growth Management Allocations to Permit and Construct 12 Residential Units at 2110 Tienda Drive subject to the conditions in the resolution. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners — Cummins, Hennecke, Jones, and Chair Olson Noes: Commissioners — Kiser and Heinitz Absent: Commissioners - Kirsten The Chair called for a short break 7:53 pm The meeting was called back to order 7:58 pm b) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the Community Development Department, Chair Olson called for the public hearing to consider the request of the Planning Commission for a Use Permit and a SPARC Review to Allow Development of a Gas Station with 8 -Dispenser Canopy, 3,078 Square Foot Convenience Store with sale of beer and wine (Type -20), and a drive through carwash facility on a .94 -acre site located at 255 East Harney Lane. (Applicant: Peter Tobin, on behalf of Hardev Singh Gill; File Number: 12-U-06 and 12 -SP -02) Vice Chair Kirsten joined the Commission meeting (8:08pm). Associate Planner Bereket gave a brief PowerPoint presentation based on the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the project. Commissioners Jones, Hennecke, and Kirsten all disclosed that they spoke with the applicant prior to the meeting. 3 Page 4 of 8 March 14th 2012 PC Minutes Continued Commissioner Jones asked if this Use Permit is approved tonight does it include all of the conditions that were outlined in the staff report and in the staff presentation. Mr. Bereket stated that it does. Hearing Opened to the Public • Peter Tobin, applicant, came forward to answer questions. • Chair Olson asked if this is a standard plan. Mr. Tobin stated that the general layout is a nice size allowing for a lot of buffering and the architecture is a bit more detailed than a normal standard plan for this type of project. • Ken Dharni, owner, came forward to answer questions. • Connie Ibarra, Lodi resident, came forward to express her concerns regarding the project. Ms. Ibarra is concerned with the extra noise over and above the noise that can already be heard from Harney Lane. She would like to know where the trash bins will be kept. How bright will the lights be and will they shine into her yard? Where will the traffic be flowing in and out of the property? She wanted to know which neighbors' staff spoke to? Ms. Ibarra would like to be able to use her back yard without smelling trash and fuel fumes. Commissioner Hennecke asked if Commissioners are following the proper procedure when making their disclosures. City Attorney Schwabauer stated that the Commissioners should be disclosing that the meeting took place and then any material items presented in that meeting that are pertinent to making a decision on the project. Hennecke disclosed that he was shown the design plans for the project. Schwabauer stated that if they were the same plans as presented tonight then there isn't a problem, but if they were different then you would need to disclose the differences. • Vice Chair Kirsten disclosed that he and the applicant discussed the feed back that the applicant had been getting from the neighbors. • Vice Chair Kirsten asked Ms. Ibarra if she has seen the site plan. Ms. Ibarra stated that she has not. Kirsten stated that one can be provided for her tonight. Mr. Bartlam pointed out on the site plan from the PowerPoint slide Ms. Ibarra's residence in relation to the project site and he added that of all the parcels adjacent to the project her residence will have the most buffering. • Chair Olson asked if this is the final look at this project. Mr. Bartlam stated that all approvals are included with application before the Planning Commission tonight. The next step will be for the applicant to submit the plans to the Building Division for review and approval. • Ms Ibarra would like to know the hours of operation. Mr. Bartlam stated that the store will operate 24 hours except for the car wash which will be from 7am to 7pm. Ibarra asked if there was someone local to contact if there are any problems. Chair Olson stated that that information can be gotten from the applicant. Commissioner Kiser added that the lighting and noise concerns are just two of the items that are being addressed by the Commission tonight. The impact to the surrounding neighborhood is a great concern to the Commission. Olson added that there is always recourse for bringing the item back to the Commission if there are concerns that are not being addressed by the property owner. • Richard Karsting, Lodi resident, came forward to object to this type of project for this parcel. Mr. Karsting is concerned that his renters will not want to rent near this type of use and he will lose the home. He would like the Commission to put themselves in the El Page 5 of 8 March 14th 2012 PC Minutes Continued position of living near the proposed project with the car wash and vehicle vacuums. Commissioner Cummins asked for clarification on weather or not Mr. Karsting was told about the commercial development when purchasing the property. Mr. Karsting stated that he was told that the development was supposed to be a little strip mall with shops. Commissioner Hennecke stated that he has lived near this type of development and the recourse is to complain if they are not following the guidelines set out for the approval. • Terry Tarditi, owner of the Montessori School on Stockton Street, came forward to object to the selling of alcohol within 200 feet of the school. He would like the Commission to consider not allowing the sale of alcohol and tobacco. • Vice Chair Kirsten asked the City Attorney if he needs to recues himself from this item due to the personal nature of his association with Mr. Tarditi. Mr. Schwabauer stated that Commissioner Kirsten would only need to recues himself if there is a financial relationship between him and Mr. Tarditi. • Terry Tarditi stated that all the paperwork has been approved for the school to re -open. • Commissioner Kiser asked if there are any restrictions for the sale of alcohol near a school. Mr. Bartlam stated that there are no restrictions for off -sale alcohol licenses. There are restrictions for on-site consumption such as bars, nightclubs, and lounges. • Fred Ergonis, potential owner of the Montessori School, came forward to object to the project. Has there been any consideration or mitigations regarding the school. Considerations for the residential neighborhood have been made. He does not believe that this is the right use for that location. The school will have 130 students starting Monday, August 13, 2012. This is a tobacco and beer store. There is the potential for the store to get robbed and that will put all the students and staff at the school in danger. Commissioner Hennecke asked if this school location has a valid use permit. Mr. Bartlam stated that a use permit was issued in about 2003. Hennecke asked if it was valid. Bartlam stated that he will need to look into it and added that staff may not have been aware that the school was closed. Hennecke asked if the school would then have trouble revalidating their use permit with the proximity to the sale of tobacco and alcohol. Mr. Bartlam stated that there are no restrictions for the proximity of the sale of tobacco and alcohol and the school. Mr. Bartlam added that back when the original application for the school came before City Staff Mr. Tarditi was cautioned that this is an industrial area. Commissioner Cummins asked if Mr. Ergonis was concerned with the attendance if this project is approved. Mr. Ergonis stated that he is concerned for the safety of the children that attend the school. Vice Chair Kirsten stated that there isn't a proximity issue. The Commission is here to apply the code within the boundaries that they are given. Mr. Ergonis stated that staff did a study for the lighting and noise and how it would impact the residential neighborhood did anyone do a study to see how this type of project would affect the school. Kirsten stated that there isn't anything in the application from a planning standpoint that would require the Commission to consider an impact on the school. • Commissioner Kiser asked Mr. Bartlam if there is a valid use permit for the school. Mr. Bartlam stated that he would research it as soon as possible. Chair Olson stated that this parcel has been zoned for this type of use for some time. This is not a new zoning designation. Mr. Bartlam stated that it was a part of the original development plan when it was annexed. The eight foot wall was part of the 5 Page 6 of 8 March 14th 2012 PC Minutes Continued development because the property has always been zoned as C-1, General Commercial. In 2004 the same type of use was approved for this parcel. Olson asked what the recourses are for Mr. Ergonis if this is approved and the applicant is not operating under the guidelines of the use permit approvals. Mr. Bartlam stated that the Use Permit can be re -opened should there be any issues regarding alcohol. The issues will need to be brought to the attention of staff before they can be acted on, so if Mr. Ergonis is experiencing any issues he is encouraged to report them. • Lowell Flemmer came forward to state that his questions have been answered. Peter Tobin, came forward to introduce Paulo Bollard who did the noise study. Mr. Bollard stated that staff has done their due diligence and the noise from the vacuums will not be an issue. Richard Karsting asked if the outdoor vacuums will also be regulated to the 7 am to 7 pm time frame. Mr. Karsting would like to know when the carwash portion of the application was brought into the discussion. It was not a part of the original approvals for this site. Mr. Bartlam stated that there are two separate types of vacuums proposed on this site. One set in the car wash facility and the other set sits along Stockton Street and they will service the inside of the vehicles. The set along Stockton Street have not had any time regulations placed on them, but the Commission is welcome to address that if they wish. • Pete Tobin came forward to say that the applicant is willing to limit the use of the out side vacuums from 7 am to 7 pm. Fred Ergonis came forward to clarify if this item was being voted on tonight without the follow-up to the question of whether or not his school's Use Permit is valid. Mr. Bartlam stated that it will have no bearing on the decision. Mr. Ergonis asked if the school complains about drinking on site what is the threshold required to bring it back to the Commission for further review. Mr. Bartlam stated that condition number six of the resolution covers the items that Mr. Ergonis is concerned about; condition number seven limits the advertising and visibility of alcohol to the public right-of-way; and condition number eight allows for periodic review by staff and or the Planning Commission based on the information that has been reported to either Planning Staff or the Police Department Staff. Ergonis asked about the threshold. Bartlam stated that there isn't a threshold. Staff will investigate the reports and if the reports violate the conditions of the Use Permit it can be brought back for review. Public Portion of Hearing Closed • Commissioner Heinitz stated that he understands the concerns expressed but this is not a new idea. There are several convenient stores within blocks of schools all around town. • Vice Chair Kirsten stated his support for the project. MOTION /VOTE: The Planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Kiser, Heinitz second, approved the request for a Use Permit and a SPARC Review to Allow Development of a Gas Station with 8 -Dispenser Canopy, 3,078 Square Foot Convenience Store with sale of beer and wine (Type -20), and a drive through carwash facility on a .94 -acre site located at 255 East Harney Lane subject to the conditions in the resolution with the amendment to condition number nine to include the time limitations on the outdoor vacuums. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 7 of 8 March 14th 2012 PC Minutes Continued Ayes: Commissioners — Cummins, Heinitz, Hennecke, Jones, Kirsten, Kiser and Chair Olson Noes: Commissioners — None Absent: Commissioners - None c) Notice thereof having been published according to law, an affidavit of which publication is on file in the Community Development Department, Chair Olson called for the public hearing to consider the request of the Planning Commission for a Use Permit to allow a Type 2 (Winery) Alcoholic Beverage Control license at 20 West Elm Street. (Applicant: Erin Taylor, on behalf of Riaza Wines, LLC; File Number: 12-U-11) Item 3c was the first public hearing heard by the Commission at this meeting. Associate Planner Bereket gave a brief PowerPoint presentation based on the staff report. Staff recommends approval of the project. Hearing Opened to the Public Erin Taylor, applicants, came forward to answer any questions. Public Portion of Hearina Closed MOTION /VOTE: The Planning Commission, on motion of Commissioner Kiser, Hennecke second, approved the request of the Planning Commission for a Use Permit to allow a Type 2 (Winery) Alcoholic Beverage Control license at 20 West Elm Street subject to the conditions in the resolution. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners — Cummins, Heinitz, Hennecke, Jones, Kiser and Chair Olson Noes: Commissioners — None Absent: Commissioners - Kirsten 4. PLANNING MATTERS/FOLLOW-UP ITEMS None 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE Director Bartlam wished our City Attorney, Steve Schwabauer a Happy Birthday. 6. ACTIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Director Bartlam stated that there has been a memo provided in the packet and staff is available to answer any questions. 7. DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE a. Staff presentation on the Draft Development Code Section 2, Commercial and Industrial Districts. Director Bartlam gave a PowerPoint presentation based on the staff report. Opened for Public Comment • No comments made. VA Page 8 of 8 March 14th 2012 PC Minutes Continued Closed to Public Comment 8. ACTIONS OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE None 9. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None 10. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC None 11. COMMENTS BY STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS Director Bartlam congratulated Commissioners Kiser and Heinitz on being re -appointed to the Commission. He also added that the Supreme Court has decided not to take up the issue that was brought before them, so the Super Wal Mart project is moving forward. Kiser asked if there is a use for the old building. Bartlam stated that a tenant occupying the old building or the building being torn down is a condition for Wal Mart to occupy the new building. Chair Olson stated that she has a concern over the way that the growth management allocations role over from year to year and she would like to have staff look at finding a way to limit the number of allocations that can be rolled over from year to year. She would like to have a discussion item brought back to the Commission in the near future. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. ATTEST: Konradt Bartlam Planning Commission Secretary N RESOLUTION NO. 2012-162 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI APPROVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE 2012 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOCATIONS FOR JOHN GIANNONI NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lodi City Council does hereby approve the 2012 Growth Management Allocation as recommended by the Lodi Planning Commission, as shown as follows: Requested Approved 2012 Allocations 2012 Allocations John Giannoni 12 9 Medium Densitv, 2110 Tienda Drive TOTAL 12 9 Dated: October 3, 2012 I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2012-162 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held October 3, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS—Johnson, Nakanishi, and Mayor Mounce NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS— Hansen and Katzakian ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS—None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS—None City Clerk 2012-162 Growth Management Allocation Application Applicant: John Giannoni Application No.: 12-GM-01 City Council October 3, 2012 ok pop L./OA-/'r U - 0 Review Growth Management Allocation Application ❖ 12 Units Residential Project No Development Plan Review No Parcel Map City Council 2 October 3, 2012 Project Located at 2110 Tienda Drive Vacant Fully improved Lot 0.81 acre (35,284 sq. ft) t2a3 , RW* ft* tz3e ,m d 123 Qt t2t0 t tm n n ,2eD t200 t3it � — Y @ @ t30B F1 1320 n Ta R w2 Ketdem an Ln.! Mry. 12 City Council s October 3, 2012 • General Plan Designation: — MUC, Mixed Use Corridor • MUC: — General office, medical office — Commercial — Multi -family units • 7.1-35 du/ac • Maximum FAR 1.2 • Sufficient size • No General Plan amendment City Council 4 October 3, 2012 Growth Management Allocation Ordinance — Adopted in 1991 — Based on competitive permit allocation system • In -fill prioritized Applies to new residential development project dwelling that adds five (5) or more units Does not apply to non-residential development, senior citizen housing, residential remodels or additions, or demolition and construction of new homes on the same site. — Second residential units, condominium conversions and special care/senior facilities are also exempt. City Council k, October 3, 2012 • plq • First application for Growth Management Application Since 2006 • 447 Medium Density Housing inventory available for use — Applicant requests 12 Medium Density allocations City Council s October 3, 2012 Available Allocations Density Scheduled from 1983- 2012 Granted from 1383- 2011 Remaining from 1389- 2011 2%Allocations for 2012 Total Available for 2012 Low (0.1-7) 6,648 2,893 3,482 290 3,772 Medium 7.1-20 1,023 438 615 45 660 High (20.1-30) 2,557 0a 2,452 112 2,564 TOTAL L 1 %228 L 3,331 L 6,549 t 447 4,278 City Council s October 3, 2012 Review of Growth Management Application — Reviewed Application August 8, 2012 — Recommended to City Council to award 12 Medium Density Units Planning Commission recommendations does NOT — Authorize construction — Constitute SPARC Review — Parcel Map approval City Council October 3, 2012 Development Plan Review — SPARC application • Detailed development plan that shows the exact dimensions and building details — Parcel Map Application Development Plan/SPARC applications — Must comply with design standards • Setback, height, lot coverage, parking etc. — Demonstrate 12 units could be built City Council October 3, 2012 Jennifer Robison From: RandiJohl Sent: Tuesday, October 02,2012 11:56 AM To: Jennifer Robison Page 1 of 1 Subject: FW: Opposition to Giannoni Request for 12 residential units at 2110 Tienda Drive, Lodi Attachments: Letter to Lodi City re Giannoni Proposal.doc Randi Jolil, JD, MMC O ii Clerk. City of I,odi Legislative Director, California City Clerks Association sai West Pine Street Lodi. California 95240 (ao9) 333-6702 Telephone (209) 333-6307Facsin ile From: Fred Baker [mailto:afreduar@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 201211:42 AM To: City Council Subject: Opposition to Giannoni Requestfor 12 residential units at 2110 Tienda Drive, Lodi Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council. Attached please find my letter which states the reasons for my opposition to the Resolution approving John Giannoni's request for12 housing unitaIlocations. It is my request that you will use your discretion to deny his request and limit the numberto 9, which was the numberoriginally planned for the property when it was 1St approved. Should you have any questions or comments feel free to call or email me. Thank you, A. Fred Baker 2375 Brittany Lane Lodi, CA 95242 Telephone: (209) 333-2881 mailto:afreduar(@c1mail.com CONFIDENTIALITYNOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank You. 10/02/2012 A. Fred Baker G. Camy Baker 2375 Brittany Lane Lodi, California 95242 Telephone: (209) 333-2881 Email: afreduar(a),amail.com October 2,2012 To: The Mayor and Member of the Lodi City Council Re: Giannoni Requestfor 12 residential units — October 3, 2012 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: I'm song that I will not be able to attend the Council hearing to be held October 3, 2012, to consider John Giannoni's request for 12 residential units (2 large buildings) to be built at 2110 Tienda Drive. John Giannoni said ant the Planning Commission that he intends to build and sell the 12 units. As you may know, I built and own a duplex at 2128 and 2130 Tienda Drive next door to the subject property. I built this duplex circa 2008 when the zoning designation was R -GA and only allowed for 9 units on this property. Originally, when Sunwest Unit 14 was developed, Mr. Giannoni and I each owned the adjoining mirror image properties where I built the duplex and now he intendsto build 12 units. At that time, Mr. Giannoni and I developed mirror image plans for 9 single story units on each of our propertieswith entries and plenty of extra parking off of Tienda Drive. In the City's plans, the property had a densityzoning of R -GA which would only allow for 9 units to be built on each of the properties. Around 2008, the City planning staff suggested that I divide my property into 4 lots which would provide for lower density duplexes at 2128 & 2130 Tienda Drive, allow for space between each building, and provide attached two car garages for each. I currently have plans for similar duplexes on the remaining 3 lots. Interestingly, at the time, Mr. Giannoni opposed my change of use even though it lowered densities. Recently, Mr. Lloyd Karger and I met with Konradt Bartlam to review Mr. Giannoni's proposal and viewed the plans with the staff in the planning department. Now, Mr. Giannoni is asking to take advantage of the recent update in the General Plan which allows increased densities on the properties. It appears he is asking to crowd the absolute maximum allowable units (12 units) with the minimum number of parking (2 per unit— no guest parking) he needs for the buildings. There also appears to be no common areas for residents or children to play. And, as Mr. Giannoni stated to the planning commission, he intends to have no homeowners association for the managementor upkeep of the property. That would mean that after Mr. Giannoni has sold the properties for whatever price, he will be gone and leave no one to manage or maintain the property. I do not believe this plan to be a good one. I agree with the large number of neighbors who voiced their opposition at the Planning Commission that this plan will negatively impact and burden not only my property next door but the neighborhood and Lodi in general. Thank you, Fred Baker 16�a� / y Y Petition to the City of Lodi from the Sunwest Community C�Io 3�IZ. PLEASE DO NOTAPPROVE JOHN GIANNONI'S HOUSING ALLOCATION REQUEST UNIT 1``Y %rtl fo We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to act now to TURN DOWN JOHN GIANNONI'S ` ` ��;'� REQUEST FOR HOUSING UNIT ALLOCATION at 2110 Tienda Drive FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: g 1 1. There were at least 50 people in attendance at the Planning Commission's meeting opposing this matter — we cannot all speak against this matter; 2. When we purchased our homes we were promised Giannoni s property would be limited to Garden � density; .Apartment 3. A higher density project would barely accommodate 2 cars per unit parking off street; 4. There for the their to are no common area residents or children play; k 4. At the Planning Commission John Giannoni said there would be no homeowner's association - so there woul&be no responsible governing authority for the project once 'Gipnnoni sells it off; S. If John Giannoni s application is approved, it is foreseeable_ that the, Baker property ne- door_ wM also want to increase densities which would also have a negative impact -oft the neighborhood; Akr fig, October 3 2012 _ 0;� olo 4�4 -Printed Name Signature Address Comment Csa t I Z�3 ce VIP-dxrA /Z., P.i� hir Iov� a(ili 1255 �eidellne� ID 21t� �oZ7— Vq d 16finot- Ki&n,L mJ24o, �o A-G-7�Idt k4 7-;4 C G whl 16•d.� ♦/ote e 2a 3 �CIJ (t 7 31�>'� tD-7i� an -y) FiAnk" f ;V �♦�tA� TTI ' zBZ �� 2-/ Sli�/F (n90 61 a 4K 7 12-111 • ��Va /D2-1 ler f "LGL ♦ 3 l�� ty �� . l -'- `s" )" Aa-� -3 7e �r ... Slim rr,,��..M ME rr ire/ MR. 4492)1�'k 2 I& -Mai mvn�' • /-�� tomMal •► /' ' / " M;XA FEW Am pc--� 4Z4 C:y rl- Printed Name Signature Address I Comment Gate Lzk v tv lo L L 141, oinewo-16ilq. Dr. �- l2 .� c . Please immediately confirm receipt cf thisfax by calling 333-6702 CITY OF LODI P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 ADVERTISING INSTRUCTIONS SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR 2012 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOCATIONS TO PERMIT AND CONSTRUCT 12 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT 2110 TIENDA DRIVE PUBLISH DATE: SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 22,2012 TEAR SHEETS WANTED: One (11 please SEND AFFIDAVIT AND BILL TO: RANDI JOHL, CITY CLERK LNS ACCT. #0510052 City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241-1910 DATED: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20,2012 ORDERED BY: RANDI JOHL CITY CLERK (3—,u,au ,614NIFER 4 ROBISON, CMC ASSISTANT CITY CLERK MARIA BECERRA ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK Faxed to the Sentinel at 369-1084 alb - ' (time) on (datO � - (Pages)„ LNS Phoned to confirm receiptof all pages at` ,(time)=JMR'MB (initials)" fortnAadvins.doc W 0 U yti ' C W" PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR 2012 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOCATIONS TO PERMITAND CONSTRUCT 12 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT 2110 TIENDA DRIVE On Thursday, September 20, 2012, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a Notice of Public Hearing to consider adopting a resolution approving the Planning Commission's recommendation for 2012 Growth Management Allocations to permit and construct 12 residential units at 2110 Tienda Drive (attached and marked as Exhibit A) was posted at the following locations: Lodi Public Library Lodi City Clerk's Office Lodi City Hall Lobby Lodi Carnegie Forum declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 20, 2012, at Lodi, California. JENNIFER M. ROBISON, CMC ASSISTANT CITY CLERK N:\Administration\CLERK\Forms\DECPOSTCDD.DOC [61:1914:1497:11'ii RANDI JOHL CITY CLERK MARIA BECERRA ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK DECLARATION OF MAILING PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTING RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR 2012 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOCATIONS TO PERMIT AND CONSTRUCT 12 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT 2110TIENDA DRIVE On Thursday, September 20, 2012, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, deposited in the United States mail, envelopes with first-class postage prepaid thereon, containing a Notice of Public Hearing to consider adopting a resolution approving the Planning Commission's recommendation for 2012 Growth Management Allocations to permit and construct 12 residential units at 2110 Tienda Drive, attached hereto Marked Exhibit A. The mailing list for said matter is attached hereto, marked Exhibit B. There is a regular daily communication by mail between the City of Lodi, California, and the places to which said envelopes were addressed. declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 20, 2012, at Lodi, California. J04NIFER NO. ROBISON, CMC ASSISTANT CITY CLERK Forms/decmail.doc ORDERED BY: RANDIJOHL CITY CLERK, CITY OF LODI MARIA BECERRA ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK URU • CITY OF LODI Date: c le Oir F3PZU7 HEARING Carnegie Forum 77 305 West Pine Street, Lodi Time: 7:85 OAK For information regarding this notice please contact: Rand! Johl V P EXis City Clerk hot u Telephone: (209) 333-6702 -NOTJCE OF PU-BUC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, October 3, 2012, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will conduct a public hearing at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider the following item: a) Resolution approving the Planning Commission's recommendation for 2012 Growth Management Allocations to permit and construct 12 residential units at 2110 Tienda Drive. Information regarding this item may be obtained in the Community Development Department, 221 West Pine Street,' Lodi, (209) 333-6711. All interested persons are invited to present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk, City Hall, 221 West Pine Street, 2"d Floor, Lodi, 95240, at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing. If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to .the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to the close of the public hearing. rder of the Lodi City Council: AR n i ohl City Clerk Dated: September 19,2012 D. Stephen Schwabauer City Attorney CLERKIPUBHEAR\NOTICESINOTCDD.DOC 9/19/12 r v Page 1 cf 1 OWNER OWNER APN OWNER NAME CARE OF OWNER STREET OWNER CITY STATE ZIPS 2375 BRITTANY 2739001 BAKER, A FRED & G CAMY LN LODI CA 95242 2375 BRITTANY 2739002 BAKER, A FRED & G CAMY LN LODI CA... 95242 2375 BRITTANY 2739003 BAKER, A FRED & G CAMY LN LODI CA 95242 2375 BRITTANY 2739004 BAKER, A FRED & G CAMY LN LODI CA 95242 10711 2739005 ARCHIBALD, HELEN TR THORNTON RD STOCK ON CA 95209 THOMAS, MICHAEL V & 1252 2739030 SUSAN A HEIDELBERG LODI CA 95242 VANDERLANS, GERALD J 2739031 TR PO BOX 1771 WOODBRIDGE CA 95258 27390311 TRACY TR LN LODI CA 9524 FITZHUGH, JOHN & VICKI 1239SALZBURG 273903 L TR LN LODI CA 9524 BARKER, ROGER M & 1234 SALZBURG 2739040 LINDATR LN LODI CA 9524 HASH IMOTO, WESLEY K& 1240 SALZBURG 2739041 ALENE T LN LODI CA 9524 WALL, NANCY JOANNE TR MICHAEL 1246SALZBURG 2739041 ETAL GALLAHAN LN LODI CA 9524 VERA, DAVID R& RACHEL 2739042 G 1227 VIENNA DR LODI CA 9524 EDDY, DOUGLAS E& 273904 HOLLI KTR 1219VIENNA DR LODI CA 9524 SMITH, JONATHAN R& 273906 ALYSIA M 1232 VIENNA DR LODI CA 9524 LODI RETIREMENT 2741017 RESIDENCE LLC PO BOX 130477 DALLAS TX 75313 2375 BRITTANY 2741018 BRITTANY LLC LN LODI CA 95242 GIANNONI, JOHN M JR & 2960 2741019 KERRY M APPLEWOOD DR LODI CA 95242 2375 BRITTANY 2741020 BRITTANY LLC LN LODI CA 9524 2960 2741021 KERRY APPLEWOOD DR LODI CA 95242 CHURCH OF GOD 7TH 2741022 DAY OF LODI 2100 TIENDA DR LODI CA 95242 SEVERSON, CLARENCE C 2741023 & LUELLA 2050 TIENDA DR LODI CA 95242 MICHAEL, DAVID J & 6255 RAYMOND 5816078 PAMELA J TR CT STOCKTON CA 95212 RIGHT, GARLAND & 2100 W 5816083 RUTH TR ETAL KETTLEMAN LN LODI CA 95242 2122 32 KETTLEMEN LANE BLR 2423 W MARCH F5816089 LLC COMMERCIA LN STE 202 ISTOCKTON ICA 95207 Page 1 cf 1