HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/27/1999City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - July 27, 1999
R�
1 �
2 r85a
3
4 CI'T'Y OF PETALUMA, CA
5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
6 July 27, 1999, 7:00 PM
7 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
8 CITY HALL, 11 ENGLISH STREET
9 PETALUMA, CA 94952
10 Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498
11 E -Mail planning @ci.petaluma ca us
12 Web Page http: / /www.ci.petaluma.mus
13
14 Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Bennett *, Feibusch, Glass, Healy, Vieler
15 Absent.• Broad
16 * Chairperson
17
18 Staff: Vincent C. Smith arcr, Interim Planning Director
19 Jane Thomson, Senior Planning Technician
20
21 "Chairperson
22
23
24 ROLL CALL:
25 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
26 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of July 13, 1999 were approved with corrections.
27 PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
28 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None.
29 COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: None.
30 CORRESPONDENCE: Letters from Martin Gavriloff and Luke and Kate Broxmeyer in
31 support of Roy Deck Variance.
32 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
33 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
34
35
36 NEW BUSINESS
37 PUBLIC HEARING:
38
39 I. ALLAIR ACCESSORY DWELLING; 625 SUNNYSLOPE AVE.; AP NO.
40 019 -160 -019; FILE NO. CUP99008(jkt).
41
42 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to legalize the prior conversion
43 of a one -story 400 sq.ft. garage to an accessory dwelling unit.
44
1
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - July 27, 1999
1 Jane Thomson presented the staff report.
2
3 The public hearing was opened.
4
5 SPEAKERS:
6
7 Commissioner Feibuseh — Did not notice that curb was painted red in front of property.
8 Jane Thomson - According to Traffic Engineer, curb should be painted red.
9 Commissioner Barrett — What is the other structure on property?
to Jane Thomson — A tool shed.
11 Sharmaine Allair — Applicant — is a long -time resident of Petaluma, the existing garage
12 was converted to a music room in late 1992, and then subsequently into an accessory
13 dwelling unit; legalizing the conversion has always been her plan; understands
14 neighborhood opposition; knows that the proposed two -story garage has upset the
15 neighborhood; neighborhood believes another dwelling unit planned to be built above
16 new proposed garage (upper level), understands the adjacent neighbor's concerns with
17 loss of view due to the proposed garage; talked about Brookside Way and parking
18 problem due to McNear School; parking problem exists in neighborhood will not be
19 exacerbated by her project; architecturally the garage conversion matches neighborhood;
20 intends to meet all City requirements and pay all fees; has submitted plans for carport
21 instead of two -car garage; will repave driveway; parking will not be impacted; wrote
22 letter to neighbors inviting them to discuss project with her, has received no response.
23 Commissioner Barrett — Does back of proposed carport contain a place for tools and
24 garbage cans? Will existing tool shed be removed?
25 Sharmaine Allair — Yes, proposed carport contains tool /garbage can storage area,
26 existing tool shed not proposed to be removed.
27 Commissioner Healy — When was garage first used as a rental unit?
28 Sharmaine Allair — Late 1994.
29 Commissioner Feibusch — Will trash cans be stored in enclosure attached to new
30 carport?
31 Sharmaine Allair — Yes.
32 Kris Skoog —Designer — Previously proposed two -car garage could not be converted to a
33 dwelling unit because the second floor can't meet the Building Codes for ceiling height.
34 Roberta Cordon — 614 Sunnyslope Ave. — Concerns with existing traffic problems on
35 private drive; concerns for safety of school children; since Polly Klass tragedy, more
36 parents have been dropping off and picking up more children; traffic is dangerous even if
37 the Traffic Engineer says that the traffic is not bad; tenants of Allair have been parking on
38 street.
39 Marvel Gardner — 621 Sunnyslope Ave. — Resident for 28 years; biggest concern is two -
40 story garage proposal; happy with carport — requests that Commission impose a condition
41 that future conversion of the carport to a garage would be subject to Commission review.
42
43 The public hearing was closed.
44
45 Commission Discussion:
2
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - July 27, 1999
2 Commissioner Healy — Good news is the attempt to legalize accessory dwelling unit,
3 glad to see second story structure is no longer proposed; would like to see a one -car
4 carport which is set farther from property line; legalizing unit is appropriate; question is
5 what is most appropriate?
6 Chair Bennett — (to applicant) — What would you think of a one -car carport?
7 Sharmaine Allair — Would be opposed to a one -car carport, prefers two -car carport.
8 Commissioner Glass — Applicant has tried to meet all concerns of staff and
9 neighborhood; GP encourages second dwelling units; does not believe any more
10 concessions need to be made by applicant; traffic increase would not be significant; there
11 have not been any accidents in this area in over three years; hope neighborhood can be
12 friendly. Can support a two -car carport.
13 Commissioner Barrett — Does City have position on legalizing unit — applicant has
14 benefited from extra income, the City has not benefited; something is owed to City, will
15 the applicant pay fees?
16 Vincent Smith - Building Official has authority to charge double fees and make
17 inspections; establishment of kitchen makes this an accessory dwelling; no written policy
18 from Planning perspective.
19 Commissioner Barrett — Were there any permits to convert garage to habitable space?
20 Sharmaine Allair — No pen
21 Jane Thomson — The applicant is required to obtain that appropriate building permits to
22 legalize the accessory dwelling unit; therefore the Building Division will inspect the
23 structure whether a Use Permit is issued or not.
24 Commissioner Barrett — Does not like to see this encouraged; likes Healy's suggestion
25 of limiting to a one -car carport.
26 Commissioner Feibusch — Requirement is four parking spaces; does not feel parking
27 will change; flexible on one or two space carport; how far is setback from Sunnyslope to
28 proposed carport? (answer — 20 feet from property line); design to be compatible with
29 neighborhood.
30 Chair Bennett — Supports request to legalize this unit; (to Barrett) does not want to
31 encourage illegal units, but does not want to be too punitive as would like people to come
32 forward and legalize; would like to see a city policy on this issue; would like Council to
33 look at penalties (Planning) in future; illegal conversions could escape our review;
34 regarding garage — does not support two -story unit, SPARC could decide one or two car
35 carport for compatibility /design issues.
36 Commissioner Healy — Prepared to move forward with this; does not recommend
37 SPARC; there are fees imposed by City in conversion; inspections will occur to make
38 sure unit is safe; if Conditional Use Permit approved, any changes would need to come
39 back to staff or Commission; prepared to approve with one -car carport further from
40 property line.
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Healy and seconded by Commissioner Barrett to
43 find this project exempt from environmental review requirements and to approve a
44 Conditional Use Permit authorizing the conversion of a 400 sq.ft. garage to a 400 sq.ft.
45 accessory dwelling based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval listed
3
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - July 27, 1999
1 in the staff report with the addition of a condition requiring redesign to a one -car carport
2 located further from property line.
3
4 Motion does not pass.
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Glass and seconded by Commissioner Feibusch to
7 find this project exempt from environmental review requirements and to approve a
8 Conditional Use Permit authorizing the conversion of a 400 sq.ft. garage to a 400 sq.ft.
9 accessory dwelling based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval listed
10 in the staff report with the addition of a condition requiring redesign to a two -car carport,
11 design subject to staff review and approval and a requirement to return to Planning
12 Commission (with public noticing) should changes to the two -car carport be requested in
13 the future.
14
15 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
16 Commissioner Broad: Absent
17 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
18 Commissioner Glass: Yes
19 Commissioner Healy: No
20 Commissioner Vieler: Yes
21 Chairperson Bennett: Yes
22
23 Findings:
24
25 1. The proposed accessory dwelling will conform to the requirements and intent of
26 the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, as conditions have been imposed regulating the
27 size, and parking requirements.
28
29 2. The proposed accessory dwelling, as conditioned, will conform to the
30 requirements and intent, goals and policies of the Petaluma General Plan, as the
31 dwelling unit is a second unit on an existing improved property, and is compatible
32 with the neighborhood as relates to size materials and configuration.
33
34 1 The proposed accessory dwelling will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental
35 to the public welfare of the community, as conditions have been imposed
36 requiring on -site covered and uncovered parking to be provided.
37
38 4. The project is exempt from CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act)
39 Section 15301 Class 1, as the structure is existing.
40
41 5. The record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public
42 review at the City of Petaluma Planning Department, City Hall, 11 English Street,
43 Petaluma, California.
44
45 Conditions
46
4
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - July 27 1999
1 From the Fire Marshal:
2
3 1. Post address at or near main entry door — minimum four (4) inch numbers on
4 contrasting background.
5
6 2. In remodels, only those heat - producing appliances that are new or relocated need
7 be provided with a fire sprinkler.
8
9 1 Provide smoke detectors in all sleeping rooms and common hallways. Detectors
10 may be battery operated.
11
12 From the Planning Department:
13
14 4. This Conditional Use Permit authorizes a 400 sq.ft. accessory dwelling unit at 625
15 Sunnyslope Avenue. No expansion (square foot or height) of the accessory
16 dwelling shall be permitted without an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit.
17
18 5. One covered parking space shall be provided on site. Plans shall be submitted to
19 the Building Division within 30 days of this approval for a single -story two-car
20 carport, design subject to staff review and approval; @ 4h @; a Ga - pQrr ^r ga r
21 with construction completed within one year. Failure to provide the required
22 covered parking will result in the accessory dwelling unit being converted back to
23 a garage. Any proposed changes to the single -story two -car carport shall be
24 subject to review by the Planning Commission, with a public notice mailed to the
25 neighborhood.
26
27 6. The applicant shall apply to the Building Division for any building permits
28 required for the conversion of the garage to an accessory dwelling unit within 30
29 days of this approval.
30
31 Standard SPARC Conditions:
32
33 7. All planting shall be maintained in good growing condition. Such maintenance
34 shall include, where appropriate, pruning, mowing, weeding, cleaning of debris
35 and trash, fertilizing and regular watering. Whenever necessary, planting shall be
36 replaced with other plant materials to insure continued compliance with applicable
37 landscaping requirements.
38
39 8. All plant material shall be served by a City approved automatic underground
40 irrigation system.
41
42 9. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and
43 Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, etc.)
44
5
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - July 27, 1999
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
10. All work within a public right -of -way requires an excavation permit from the
Department of Public Works.
11. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and
Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc).
12. This use permit approval may be recalled to the Planning Director for review at
any time due to complaints regarding lack of compliance with conditions of
approval, traffic congestion,, noise generation, or other adverse operating
characteristics. At such time, the Planning Director may add /modify the
Conditional Use Permit conditions of approval.
13. The applicants /developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or
any of its boards, commission, 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 /developers of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall
coordinate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the
City from participating in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City
bears its own attorney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good
faith.
NOTICE OF ESTIMATED FEES, DEDICATIONS, AND OTHER EXACTIONS
Pursuant to Section 66020 of the California Government Code, the applicant/developer
has the statutory right to protest development fees, dedication and reservation
requirements, and other exactions included in this project approval, and listed as follows
(calculations based on a 640 square foot accessory dwelling unit):
Sewer Connection:
Water Connection:
Community Facilities Development
Storm Drain Impact:
Dwelling Construction:
School Facilities:
In -lieu Housing:
Traffic Mitigation:
$1,000
Contact Fire Marshal's office (778 -4389) to
determine meter sizing /flow requirements in light of
driveway length and second unit. Contact Water
Filed Office (778 -4352) to determine meter sizing.
Not applicable
Not applicable (existing structure)
$120.00
Contact School District — 778 -4621
N/A
$1,885
G
City of•Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - July 27, 1999
1
2
3
4 11. ROY DECK VARIANCE; 609 4TH STREET; AP NO. 008 -2667003;
5 FILE NO. VAR99001(jkt).
6
7 Consideration of a Variance from the Zoning Ordinance setback standards to
8 authorize the legalization of a garage roof -top deck and stairs.
9
1 o Jane Thomson presented the staff report.
11
12 The public hearing was opened.
13
14 SPEAKERS:
15
16 Commissioner Bennett — Was letter against this project from an adjacent property
17 owner?
18 Jane Thomson — The letter was from the tenant/renter on the property directly behind —
19 has photos; the property owner approves.
20 Commissioner Healy — Clarification on setbacks?
21 Dick Lieb — Applicant /designer — there will be more and more infill in this town;
22 applicants did not know this was illegal, backyard is small; property owner to rear does
23 not object; client willing to further screen project on east and south elevations; needs
24 some reinforcing to structure (will be done); applicants want to enjoy backyard; no
25 special rights would be given with this variance; unique situation; neighbors I not
26 objecting.
27 Karl Bundeson — (owns property nearby) Spoke in favor of Variance; project not
28 noticeable from street, adjacent properties all have reduced setbacks.
29 Bill Roy — Property owner 609 4"' Street — This has been in question for some time;
30 showed photos of property; stairs were existing when the neighbors moved in; hot tub
31 cannot be seen because of lattice on 2 sides for privacy; deck does not overlook any other
32 property; would be happy to add more lattice; on first name basis with all the neighbors;
33 does not know objecting renters.
34 Commissioner Glass (to Mr. Lieb) — you indicated deck is 9'8" — what would legal
35 ramifications of shorter height be?
36 Jane Thomson — If the structure is under 10 feet, the sideyard setback would only need
37 to be 3 feet; the rear yard setback for an accessory structure is always 5' -0 "; noted that
38 this structure was issued a Variance several years ago to allow for reconstruction.
39 Dick Lieb — Garage was falling apart and rotting; brought up to "garage code ", fire safety
40 when reconstructed.
41 Chair Bennett — Dealing with Variance — not the same as legalizing something; findings
42 have to be met; (to staff) please explain steps.
43 Vincent Smith — Points out findings required to approve a Variance; staff analysis points
44 out reasons that Variance cannot be made; Mr. Lieb's information that unit is not higher
7
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - July 27, 1999
1 than 10 feet is new information; if a finding could be made, conclusion could be that a
2 Variance could be allowed.
3 Commission Healy — Can interpret Finding 4 differently — neighbor who objected seems
4 to have issue with privacy, screening could be added to obtain more privacy.
5 Commissioner Glass — Regarding 9'8" height, would staff have come in with another
6 recommendation if they knew height was under 10 feet? (Answer = No)
7 Commissioner Feibusch — Can make an argument that Finding 4 could be made to fit
8 this project; looking at this as an individual site, feels this is a wonderful project; no
9 major issues; add screening and vegetation to rear of project; seems more like a roof
1 o garden than a deck.
11 Commissioner Barrett — Very nice looking project; would support with additional
12 screening and evergreens.
13 Commissioner Vieler — Variance is only way for individuality of expression; does not
14 impact in a negative way; supports additional screening and evergreens, will enhance
15 project.
16 Vincent Smith — When structure is less than 10 feet, sideyard setback would be 3 feet
17 instead of 4 feet.
18 Commissioner Glass — Care taken of home /landscaping speaks volumes; rules need to
19 be somewhat flexible: needs this project to be able to enjoy this property; this is not
20 setting a precedent with screening.
21 Commissioner Healy — Best solution is to approve Variance with screening and
22 evergreen plantings; this property owner is responsible, but a new owner may not be as
23 responsible; have to remember that the decision runs with the land and not the person.
24 Chair Bennett — Will vote against this Variance because cannot make Findings, even
25 though the quality and abundance of vegetation is evident, is worried about precedence.
26
27 A motion was made by Commissioner Healy and seconded by Commissioner Feibusch to
28 approve a Variance from the Zoning Ordinance setback standards to authorize the
29 legalization of a garage roof -top deck and stairs in its current condition based on the
30 findings and subject to the following condition:
31
32 Commissioner Barrett: Yes
33 Commissioner Broad: Absent
34 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
35 Commissioner Glass: Yes
36 Commissioner Healy: Yes
37 Commissioner Vieler: Yes
38 Chairperson Bennett: No (cannot make Findings)
39
4o Findings
41
42 1. There are peculiar and unusual conditions inherent in the property sufficient to
43 cause a hardship, as the stairs to the roof top deck/garage roof could not be
44 constructed elsewhere on the site as the remainder of the site is already improved.
45
8
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - July 27, 1999
1 2. A hardship also exists since the condition requiring a variance was not created by
2 the owner, specifically, the garage is existing on site in its original location with
3 substandard setbacks.
4
5 3. A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
6 rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity,
7 and that a variance does not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not
8 enjoyed by his neighbors as there are similar properties in the vicinity with
9 reduced setbacks.
10
11 4. The authorizing of a variance is not of substantial detriment to the adjacent
12 property, as a condition has been imposed requiring additional screening and
13 vegetation be installed /planted thereby ensuring the privacy of the adjacent
14 properties.
1.5
16 Condition
17
18 1. To ensure the privacy of the adjacent properties, additional screening and
19 evergreen plantings shall be installed on site. A landscape plan shall be
20 submitted with the building permit, and be subject to staff review and approval.
21
22
23 111. SPRINT PCS; 611 Payran Street, APN 005 - 020 -038; File N®.
24 CUP99011; (ed)
25
26 Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to co- locate 6 panel antennas at the top of
27 an existing lattice communication tower that is 94 feet in height and is used by the
28 California Highway Patrol at the CalTrans yard, at 611 Payran Street. Each panel
29 will be five (5) feet in height, eight (8) inches in width, and three (3) inches in
30 depth. Additional equipment is proposed to be located at the base of the tower and
31 will be screened by existing landscaping and shrubbery.
32
33 This item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 10,
34 1999.
35
:L
City of Petaluma Planning Commission Minutes - July 27, 1999
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
IV. LIAISON REPORTS.
City Council (MH) - Discussion regarding General Plan process,
scope, will review at next Planning Commission meeting; discussion of in-
fill projects.
SPARC ( ®G) - Chevron Station project moved forward; discussion of
landscaping for Lakeville Corporate Center.
Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee (WV) - No report.
Tree Advisory Committee (TB) - 4 Maples were planted at
Bassett /Howard.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:40 PM
s \p c -p I an \min u to s \072 7
ILI