HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6.A 06/02/2014`SAL �'Lr
RO
�85a
DATE: June 2, 2014
TO:
FROM:
Agenda Item #6.A
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager
Heather Hines, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution Affirming the Community Development Director's administrative
decision to deny the appeal requesting height modification for a new residence at
24 7a' Street
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution denying the appeal by Chris Scerri
and affirming the Community Development Directors administrative decision to deny the height
modification request for the proposed residence.
BACKGROUND
On March 25, 2014 the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee approved a Resolution
(Attachment 2) for historic demolition of the existing house at 24 7a' Street based on a finding of
no significance.
In preparation for new construction on the property, property owner Chris Scerri submitted a
request for a height modification, under Section 12.020.E. of the Implementing Zoning
Ordinance (IZO), to allow a maximum building height of 27'6" as measured to the midpoint
between the eaves and the ridge of the roof. This is approximately 2'6" taller than the 25'
maximum allowable building height in the R3 zoning district. The height modification request
was denied by the Community Development Director on April 9, 2014 based on the findings
outlined in the attached letter (Attachment 3).
On April 10, 2014 Chris Scerri filed an appeal with the City Clerk appealing the administrative
decision to deny the requested height modification. The grounds for appeal, outlined in the Letter
of Appeal (Attachment 4), were based on the applicant's belief that the design of the house will
complement the character of the surrounding neighborhood and a lower roof height that complies
with the 25' height requirement would compromise the compatibility of that architectural design.
On May 13, 2014 the appeal was considered by the Planning Commission at a duly noticed
public hearing. The Commission was split on their decision and a motion to approve the appeal
and overturn the administrative decision failed with a tie vote (3-3, Gomez absent).
Agenda Review:
City Attorney Finance Director.
City Mana;,;r-JO�
The three commissioners supporting the motion cited the following reasoning:
® Proposed design complements the neighborhood
® There are examples of homes in the neighborhood greater than 25 feet
o The owner has support of neighbors as evidenced in signed petition (Attachment 6)
® Although not clearly a dominant height, the neighborhood presents a unique variability in
existing building heights
e The proposed house has been designed to fit within that variability
The three Commissioners argued that based on the absence of a dominant height, the IZO
Section 12.020.E allows for subjectivity in deciding whether to allow building heights exceeding
the allowable 25' height limit prescribed for R3 zoning.
The other three Commissioners interpreted Section 12.020.E to apply only in situations where a
dominant height clearly exists. Additionally, these Commissioners argue that the variation in
height in the surrounding neighborhood gave ample opportunity for a house to be designed to
complement the neighborhood within the 25 foot height limit. Additionally, this portion of the
Commission argued that due to the lack of a dominant height, IZO Section 12.020.E could not be
used as grounds to request an exception to the existing height requirements for R3 Zoning.
The full Commission agreed that the surrounding neighborhood is an area of special character
and historic architectural and aesthetic value and thus a complementary design is important for
infill development. Additionally, the full Commission agreed that a clearly dominant building
height did not exist in the immediate area based on the eclectic mix of buildings and styles.
The limited consensus and difference in interpretation of Section 12.020.E resulted in a failed
motion due to a tie vote (3-3). No action was taken by the Planning Commission. In response to
the lack of formal action taken by the Planning Commission, the administrative decision stands.
On May 15, 2014 the applicant filed an appeal with the City Clerk appealing the Director's
denial of the height modification request and requesting that the appeal be heard by the City
Council for final decision.
Appeals
Implementing Zoning Ordinance Section 24.070 establishes procedures for the appeal and
review of determinations and decisions. An appeal of an administrative decision by the
Community Development Director is appealable to the Planning Commission and a decision of
the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council. The property owner initially
submitted an appeal of the administrative decision to the Planning Commission and has now
submitted an appeal of the decision to the City Council based on the failed motion by the
Planning Commission. The City Council may affirm; affirm in part, or reverse the
administrative decision to deny the height modification request.
CZ
Height Modification
IZO Section 12.020.E. provides for a modification to the maximum height for new residential
units at the discretion of the Community Development Director when the following
determinations can be made:
• The property is in an area of special character or special historic architecture or aesthetic
value; and
• Additional height would result in a building design more compatible with the dominant
height in the immediate neighborhood.
The following findings were outlined in staff's denial of the request for height modification:
• The surrounding neighborhood represents a variety of architectural styles
• A range of building heights are found in the surrounding neighborhood
• There are a limited number of larger homes in the immediate area that are taller than 25 ft
• These larger homes represent the exception in building height
• There is not a clear dominant building height due to the eclectic mix of housing types
• The houses on either side of the project site appear to be within the allowable height limit
• A height modification is not needed to ensure compatible architectural design.
The primary consideration when reviewing the request was whether or not the height
modification is in fact necessary to ensure compatibility to the immediate neighborhood. Based
on the information provided by the applicant and a visual survey of the streetscape and
surrounding neighborhood it is clear that a height of greater than 25 feet is not dominant in the
neighborhood. Therefore, complementary design to enhance the special character of the area
does not necessitate a greater height. Staff believes the allowable 25 foot height limit in the R-3
zoning district allows sufficient flexibility to achieve a design compatible with the eclectic mix
of architectural styles found in the neighborhood.
Environmental Review
The project has been reviewed in compliance with CEQA guidelines and has been determined to
be categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction) subsection (a) as the
construction of a single family residence in an urbanized area.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The appeal is a cost recovery project with all costs of processing paid by the applicant.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Resolution
2. HCPC Resolution
3. Letter Denying Height Modification
4. Letter of Appeal
5. Visual Survey Submitted by Applicant
6. PowerPoint presented by applicant at May 13 PC meeting
0
ATTACHMENTI
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL
DENYING THE APPEAL BY CHRIS SCERRI AND AFFIRMING THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO DENY THE
HEIGHT MODIFICATION REQUEST FOR THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT 24 7"' Street
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 008-172-014
File No. PLAP-14-003
WHEREAS, Chris Scerri submitted a request for a building height modification to
construct a new residence at 24 7th Street with a building height of 27'- 6" measured to the
midpoint of the eaves and the ridge; and
WHEREAS, Section 12.020(E) of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance provides for a
modification to the maximum building height for new residential units at the discretion of the
Director when it is determined that the location of the new unit is in an area of special character
or special historic architectural or aesthetic value and where additional height would result in a
building design more compatible with the dominant height in the immediate neighborhood.
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2014, the Community Development Director denied the
requested height modifications with findings that the surrounding neighborhood is made up of an
eclectic mix of architectural styles without establishment of a dominant building height and
therefore a height modification is not necessary to ensure compatible architectural design
(Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference); and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2014, Chris Scerri filed an appeal of the Community
Development Director's administrative decision to deny the requested height modification
(Exhibit B, incorporated herein by reference); and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2014, the Planning Commission considered Chris Scerri's
appeal of the Community Development Director's administrative decision. A motion to approve
the appeal and overturn the administrative decision failed with a tie vote of present
Commissioners (3-3); and
WHEREAS, when no action is taken by the Planning Commission the Director's
decision to deny the height modification request stands; and
WHEREAS, On May 15, 2014, Chris Scerri filed a subsequent appeal to the City
Council to appeal the Community Development Director's administrative decision to deny the
requested height modification; and
WHEREAS, the application of appeal is within the scope of Section 24.070 of the
Implementing Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, The project has been reviewed in compliance with CEQA guidelines and
has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction)
subsection (a) as the construction of a single family residence in an urbanized area; and
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2014 a public notice of the hearing for the appeal before the
City Council was published in the Argus Courier and mailed to all property owners and
occupants within 500 feet of the subject property; and
WHEREAS, a staff report dated June 2. 2014 and incorporated herein by reference
analyzed the appeal for the City Council. The City Council considered the appeal at a noticed
public hearing on June 2, 2014, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be
heard.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that on June 2, 2014 the City Council fully
considered all evidence presented before and at the duly noticed public hearing regarding this
matter, and on the basis of the staff report, testimony and other evidence and the record of
proceedings herein, denies the appeal of Chris Scerri filed with the City Clerk on May 15, 2014
and affirms the Community Development Director's denial of a height modification for a new
residence to be located at 24 7"' Street.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council, adopts the following
findings for denial of the appeal, as supported by the record of proceedings:
1. The surrounding neighborhood consists of an eclectic mix of homes dating to the 19`I' and
20i1' centuries with a limited amount of modern infill. The development of the
neighborhood over the previous century and a half have resulted in a neighborhood that
features a variety of architectural styles, heights, massing and character reflective of their
respective era.
2. The immediate neighborhood surrounding 24 7`I' street does not exhibit a dominant height
and therefore, the special character of the area does not require that the new residence
proposed at 24 7t11 Street exhibit a height beyond the allowable 25 feet in order to achieve
compatibility with the neighborhood character.
3. Section 12.020(E) of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance only applies in situations
where there is a dominant height in the neighborhood in question. Therefore, in the
absence of a clear, dominant height, Section 12.020(E) shall not be used as a grounds for
an exception to the height limit as prescribed in tables 4.6 to 4.13 of the Implementing
Zoning Ordinance.
IN
ATTACHMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-01
CITY OF PETALUMA
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
MAKING A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANCE AND AUTHORIZING DEMOLITION
OF THE SCERRI RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 24 71h Street
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 008-172-014
File No. PLSR-14-0006
WHEREAS, Chris Scerri has submitted a request for Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee
approval to demolish the existing Scerri Residence located at 24 7m Street, Assessor's Parcel No. 008-172-
014; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a historic evaluation titled, Historic Assessment for 24 Th
Street, Petaluma CA. The historic evaluation is incorporated herein by reference and is available for
review at City Hall during normal business hours. The historic evaluation confirmed that the existing
Scerri Residence located at 24 7th Street was constructed circa 1905 and altered in 1920, 1970 and 2012;
and,
WHEREAS, the proposed demolition is within scope of Section 15.060 of the Implementing Zoning
Ordinance and adopted City Council Resolution 2005-198 N.C.S. (Demolition Policy); and,
WHEREAS, the project was reviewed pursuant to CEQA guidelines and determined to be
categorically exempt pursuant to Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) subsection (1) as the demolition of a
single family residence. The Historical Resources exception in CEQA Guidelines 15300.2(f) does not apply
because the structure to be demolished has no cultural or historical significance, as detailed in the
historic evaluation and elsewhere in the administrative record; and,
WHEREAS, a staff report dated March 25, 2014 described and analyzed the request and historic
evaluation for the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee; and,
WHEREAS, Demolition Request was reviewed by the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee
at a duly noticed public hearing on March 25, 2014 in accordance with the City of Petaluma
Implementing Zoning Ordinance, Section 24.010.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above recitals are true and correct and are
incorporated herein by reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the staff report, the historic evaluation and all other
information in the record, the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee hereby finds that the Scerri
Residence is not historically or culturally significant and authorizes demolition of the building, based on
the findings made below and subject to conditions of approval attached as Exhibit A hereto and
incorporated herein by reference:
1. The Scerri residence is not located in a designated historic district and is not listed on a local,
state, or national register or survey;
HCPC Resolution No. 2014-01 2 " 1
2. Based onthe historic evaluation, the Scenii residence does not appear eligible for listing ono
local, state, ornational register ursurvey.
3. The original building has been o|ievad several times and no longer exhibits the original
his1ohcchomcier.Thehidohcevo}uotionconc|udedihoitheo{teortinnsperformedinlY2O,
1970 and 2012 have reduced its ability to convey important visual, architectural or cultural
features important in retaining the existing character of the neighborhood, which contains a
number ofhidohc(but not locally designated landmark) structures.
4. The demolition ofthe Scerriresidence *Al|not bedetrimental tothe aesthetic oreconomic
vitality ofthe community osthe house osaltered does not contribute significantly |oeither
the aesthetic o/economic vitality ofthe community.
ADOPTED this 25th day of March, 2014, by the following vote:
ATTEST:
ComrififfeeMernber
Aye
No
Absent,
Abstain
Lin
X
Gomez
X
Vice Chair Pierre
X
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/Z r
Eric W. Danly, City Attorney
I-ICPC Resolution No. 2014-01 2
Exhibit 1
Scerri Residence
24 71h Street
APN 008-172-014
City File Number: PLSR-14-0006
1. Approval is granted by the Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee to demolish the Scent
residence, a single-family residence located at 24 7th Street and constructed circa 1905, consistent
with the requirements of the Building Code.
2. A demolition permit issued by the Building Division and including any required permits from the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District or other regulatory agencies shall be required prior to
demolition of the existing buildings.
3. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall submit for staff review and approval, a
written statement describing how building materials, fixtures, doors, and other items of historic
nature shall be salvaged, to the extent possible, for reuse or to be made available (at the
applicant's expense) to interested parties (pursuant to IZO Section 15.060A).
4. Construction hours are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and Saturday from
9:00 a.m. to S:OD p.m. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and all holidays observed by the City
of Petaluma.
5. 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,
commission, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval 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 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 if the City
bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good faith.
HCPC Resolution No. 2014-01
David Glass
Mayor
Chris Albertson
Teresa Barrett
Mike Harris
Mike Healy
Gabe Kearney
Kathy Miller
Councibnembers
Community Development
Department
11 English Sleet
Petaluma, CA 94952
Phone (707) 778-4301
Fac (707) 778-4498
Building Division,
Phone (707) 778-4301
Fax (707) 778-4498
E -Mad:
cdd@ci.petaluma. ca. us
To Schedule Inspections:
Phone (707) 778-4479
Planning Division
Phone (707) 778-447L
Fax (707) 778-449,'
E -Mail.
pemlumaplanningca
ci.petahtma.ca.u.
ATTACHMENT 3
CITE' OF PETALU 1
POST OFFICE Box 61
PETALUMA, CA 94953-0061
April 9, 2014
Mr. Chris Scerri
24 7' Street
Petaluma, CA 95472
RE: Request for Modification to Building Height
24 7" Street
Dear Mr. Scerri,
After careful review, your request for a modification to maximum building height
for a new single family structure located at 24 7a' Street has been denied. Your
property is located in the R-3 zoning district which allows a maximum building
height of 25 feet measured to the midpoint of the roof for hipped or gabled roof
types (half the distance between the eave and gable as measured from the average
finished grade). The proposed height of the new house located at 24 7a' Street is
27'- 9", approximately 2'- 9" taller than the allowable maximum building height.
Section 12.020(E) of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance provides for a
modification to the maximum building height for new residential units at the
discretion of the Director when it is determined that the location of the new unit is
in an area of special character or special historic architectural or aesthetic value
and where additional height would result in a building design more compatible
with the dominant height in the immediate neighborhood.
The surrounding neighborhood is not a designated historic district but does
encompass an eclectic mix of homes built in the 19'h and 20th centuries. Existing
homes in the surrounding neighborhood represent a variety of architectural styles
and together create an area that can clearly be described as having special
character and architectural value. Along with the eclectic mix of architectural
styles is a range of building heights and both single and two story homes. As you
pointed out in your request for height modifications, there are a limited number of
existing homes in the immediate neighborhood that have been constructed at
heights above the current 25 foot maximum building height. However, those
homes are clearly the larger homes in the area and represent the exception in
building height in the immediate neighborhood.
3-1
t �,� 5 €, •' FM
POST OFFICE BOX 61
PETALUM A, CA 94953-0061
David Glass
Staff does not believe that those exceptions to the 25 foot height limit represent
Ala nor
the "dominant height in the immediate neighborhood" as required in Section
Chris Albertson
12.020(E). As represented by many homes in the immediate neighborhood and
Teresa Barrett
Mile Harris
those on either side of the property at 24 7d' Street, the dominant height appears to
Mile Healy
Gabe Kearney
be within the allowable building height of 25 feet. Therefore, staff does not fm
Kathy Miller
that the requested height modification is necessary to allow an architectural
ers
Councilrnzmbers
design more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff believes that
the allowable 25 foot building height in the R-3 zoning district allows flexibility
to achieve an architectural design compatible with the eclectic mix of styles found
in the existing neighborhood.
Of particular importance in reviewing the requested height modification related to
construction specifically on this property is the relationship between the new
construction and the surrounding historic properties. Infill construction in
established historic neighborhoods should be designed to be compatible with
surrounding character and should echo existing development patterns found in the
immediate neighborhood. New construction should not be designed or sited to
compete with existing development, making it of particular importance that new
construction echo the dominant height and not the tallest homes found in the
existing neighborhood.
Community Development
Department
1 t English Street
As discussed, Section 24.070 of the IZO provides for appeals of all decisions by
Petaluma, CA 94952
the Director to the Planning Commission. An appeal of this determination must
Phone (707) 778-4301
Fax (707) 778-4498
be filed with the City Clerk within 14 days of the date of this letter and be
provided on the applicable city application. An application for appeal should be
accompanied by a written statement outlining the grounds of the appeal and must
Building Division
be accompanied by the applicable appeal fee as set by the adopted fee schedule.
Phone (707) 778-4301
Fm (707) 778-4498
E-A1ad.,
cdd(glc;.petaluma ca. us
To Schedule Lupectiota:
Sincerely,
Phone (707) 778-4479
/2 ��a
H�e"atthheer
Hines
Planning Division
Phmw (707) 778-4470
Planning Manager
g ger
Fax (707) 778-4498
E-Alail:
petalumaplanning@
cipetolunm.ca.us
m
nL4i'
COST RECOVERY FORM
ans
ATTACHMENT
This form will be processed as pan of
certain development applications. No fee
is required for this fmm.
Purpose:
This form is for the agreement of payment of full cost recovery fees for application processing and inspection
services. It is not required for flat fee applications.
The Applicant/Authorized Agent is required to sign this document. In the event that the Property
Owner is the Applicant, the Property Owner is required to sign this document.
I/ we, Chris Scerri
(Property Owner name) or authorized agent
agree to pay to the City of Petaluma all reimbursable costs, both direct and indirect, including State- mandated
costs, associated with review and processing of the accompanying application for land use approval(s) with
respect to the subject property or project located at:
24 7thStreet, Petaluma, CA 94952
Address, or Assessors Parcel
even if the application is withdrawn and/or not approved.
Brief Project Description:
Request for modification to maximum height for a new single family structure located at
24 7th Street in Petaluma. The prosed height we are requesting is 27'6" which is an increase
2'6" over the 25' allowed. Heather Hines, Planning Manager denied our request to the
mnflifirotinn anti want to FIDDeal the denial.
Reimbursable costs and Deposits
Reimbursable costs include but are not limited to all items within the scope of the City/s adopted Cost
Recovery Program, (Reso.2004-028 N.C.S.) as well as the cost of retaining professional and technical
consultant services and any services necessary to perform functions related to review and processing of the
applications and monitoring of the work.
Owner and Applicant understand that one or more deposits will be required to be paid by Owner, and/or
Applicant to cover the costs noted above at such time(s) and of such amounts as requested by the Community
Development Director or designee.
City's Responsibility
City agrees to review and process the application in a timely manner in accordance with this Agreement and
all applicable laws, regulations, ordinances, standards and policies. This agreement applies to all subsequent
applications related to the project.
Page I of 3 Cost Recovery Form
City of Petaluma Planning Division
I 1 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
Hours: 8 am— 12 pm and I pm — 5 pm,
Mondays through Thursdays. Closed Fridays.
Lost updated: July 5, 2012
T:(707)778-4470
For faster responses, please e-mail us at:
petalumaplanning@ci.petaluma.ca.us
http://cityofpetaluma. ncL/cdd/pl anning.htmi
-4_1
rRONT ELEVATION (#
PROPOSED NEW HOME AT E
#52 6TH STREET
7TH STREET
ED HEIGHT MODIFICA
#106/108 7TH STREET
VICINITY MAP
IDPOINT OF ROOF HEIGHT
�o
N
AVERAGE GROUND LEVEL i
ATTACHMENT
n
N
c7
w
x
w
w
u.
0
0
O
ui
w .
UJ
O
a.
O
cc
a
NOTE:
G
a
PROPERTIES SHOWN ON THIS MAP INDICATE
Hz
¢
Z9 �.
HOME STRUCTURES, LOCATED IN THE
a
y ¢
c'n U
IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH EXCEED
u 'a'
o
U
THE STANDARD BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT OF 25'
FOR R2
�C
#670 'D' STREET
E
AND R3 ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
UNC
r,
SEE SHEET 2 FOR SPECIFIC HEIGHTS.
#700 'D' STREET
rl_I
DRAWN BY
I�VL`i DLYON
DATE
Febrnary 10, 201=
G
a
m a = m
Z9 �.
Iom oar
U ^
�oo z
u 'a'
U
Q
#670 'D' STREET
#700 'D' STREET
rl_I
DRAWN BY
I�VL`i DLYON
DATE
Febrnary 10, 201=
INLt-il\DY niIIVIL) I n/ --\l Lhl Cell L?' nLlum 1 LIME I
(SEE SHEET 1 FOR PROXIMITY TO PROPERTY)
#106 & 108 7TH STREET
#52 6TH STREET
#700 'D' STREET (CORNER OE 'D' & TT -i)
AVERAGE GROUND LEVEL
DRAWN B7
KEVIN DLYC
DATE
February 10, 2
SCALE
NA
ATTACHMENT
24 7th Street
Scerri Residence
Introduction
• Background for Chris, Jessica & Keaton Scerri:
• Grew up in Petaluma
• Fourth generation
• Own established businesses in town:
• Golden State Lumber
• Advanced Building Solutions
• Active in the community:
• Mentor Me
• Boys and Girls Club
• Carousel Fund
• Spring Hill Schools
Introduction(..L)
Why we bought the house:
• Location — appeal of being downtown
• Family type neighborhood
• Walkability: proximity to restaurants and shopping
• Family
• Community
Proposal for house:
• Maintain Victorian look and feel
• Blend into neighborhood
• Help to increase property values
• Build a home our child can grow up in
Surrounding Neighborhood Signatures
s�r4re� nPou a. lYea�aeT orca, Gnu a�S Mvy Oxn�e.eu-Mq_se
�v�r�ya u�.n�m,m.,��.arewew�a
4
5/27/2014
(,e —Z
Surrounding Neighborhood Signatures
mawiusn..,m*vez.resranrmr.,,. im=.,=rz..a,..cmaw�.>sa,n.gmemsh.
ze x�. xsran, im re eer m eeur,.,..
im=.ay xxru.n.m urMm.n,..we.aamm.n. �cmmmwnw nor a:..
some .varr.,rwm
lociI cu mi _ y✓LAy":e,
IO6 10M ST,C f fuldm
7lrE•1/sr �v!ro%Gomar (�In,rN�"'�'
ze 57 1
Z8 i?7s7 ,
a4.lE�1up,
Architectural Designer: Kevin Dixon
• Introduction:
• Petaluma Resident for 22 years
• Licensed General Contractor for 33 years
• Architectural Designer for 24 years
5/27/2014
Height Modification Request
5/27/2014
ie "i
Nearby Homes
5/27/2014
Proposed Floor Plan
5/27/2014