Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/09/2000Planning Commission Minutes - May 9, 2000 L tr City of Petaluma, California �? City Council Chambers City Hall, 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498 18 5 $ E -Mail planninggei.petaluma.cams Web Page http: / /www.ci.petaluma.ca.us Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2000 - 7:00 PM Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Bennett*, Broad, Cader- Thompson, Feibusch, Glass, Vieler (arrived after correspondence presented) * Chair Staff: Hans Grunt, Interim Senior Planner Betsi Lewitter, Contract Planner ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of April 25, 2000 were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENT: None DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: Commissioner Barrett asked follow -up question on joint meeting with Sonoma County Planning Commission and City of Sonoma Planning Commission concerning DEIR for White Oak Estates proposal on Sonoma Mountain. Answer: Mike Moore is investigating options with the County concerning the Cities, including the Planning Commissions participation in a joint meeting. There is a need for County cooperation as they are the lead agency for the project. City Council may want to participate. CORRESPONDENCE: Letter from Attorney Robert Oliker. APPEAL STATEMENT: Within fourteen (14) calendar days following the date of a decision of the Planning Commission, the decision may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or by any other interested party. If no appeal is made within that time, the decision shall be final. An appeal shall be addressed to the Council in writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk. Said appeal shall be accompanied by the appeal fee as specified by Resolution 92 -251- N.C.S. as adopted by the City Council. The appeal shall state specifically the grounds for the appeal and the relief sought by the appellant. Planning Commission Minutes - May 9, 2000 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda. NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARING: L APPEAL OF SMITH/PRICE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT; 815 D Street; AP No. 008 - 292 -003. Consideration of an Appeal of the administrative approval -of a Conditional Use Permit and an Exception to the required side yard setback to allow construction of a 576 sq.ft., second -story accessory dwelling unit above an existing garage to be located 1 foot 10 inches from the side property line rather than providing the standard minimum side yard setback of 4 feet for accessory buildings. Betsi Lewitter presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened. SPEAKERS: Commissioner Broad: Is the structure to be removed or reconstructed? Answer: Attempt to reconstruct per discussion with applicant's architect. Commissioner Broad: What is maximum allowable height of accessory building? Answer: 15 feet. Commissioner Broad: What is maximum allowable height of accessory dwelling? Answer: 21 feet. Susan Price — Introduced proposed project. Trying to make structure more like existing SFD notes architect, husband and attorney here. Susan presented history of working with neighbors. Architect Colleen Mahoney — Referred to her letter. Spent a great deal of time designing project. Created something useful for Dan and Susan and good for community. Designed to compliment home. Responded to Dranit's concerns for privacy with revision eliminating windows and deck. Has documentation showing proposed windows on south side within 1' 10" of property line allowed by building code. Pointed out General Plan Housing Element Program 23 goal to continue to allow 2 nd units on smaller lots with Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Broad: How high is coupla? Answer: Architect Mahoney — 4'8". Commissioner Broad: Is unclear — plans show existing garage is 624 ft and proposed plans show reconstructed garage as 500 ft. Commissioner Broad: How is this accomplished? 2 Planning Commission Minutes - May 9, 2000 Answer: Architect Mahoney — Removing existing rear garden shed which explains reduced net area of garage structure. Commissioner Broad: Is expectation that existing siding is to be removed? Answer: Architect Mahoney — Probably remove for shear wall and then replace siding. Commissioner Broad: Has structural engineer indicated the feasibility of renovating existing structure to accommodate 2 "d story, etc.? Answer: Architect Mahoney — Yes. Attorney Oliker: Refers to letter submitted this evening comparing proposed structure to other properties with accessory structures — they are significantly larger lots than the subject'property. Additional points: • 'Issue of proportionality — described content of April 28 letter. • 'Addressed CEQA points and claimed staff used inappropriate exemption 15303(3) due to claim that project represents a significant impact on historical structure (the house at 815 "D" St.). • Exceptions for Accessory Dwelling setbacks — claims staff inappropriately used an exception where a Variance is the proper vehicle per the zoning code. • Claims that the provisions for accessory dwellings restrict staff from permitting reduced side yard setbacks in the exceptions provisions (26 -512 — Minor CUP). Commissioner Broad: Confirms historic structure Mr. Oliker referred to is house rather than garage and questioned the proposed specific adverse impact. Attorney Oliker: Stated accessory structure is so large that it is crowding historic structure — detracts rather than adds to primary structure. Attorney Piotrokowski: Rebutted Oliker's points above stating CEQA review not required for accessory dwelling units; State and City recognize need to encourage 2nd units due to housing shortage. Project appropriate under zoning for neighborhood. Dick Lieb (local architect): Introduced himself (speaking on behalf of neighbors Dranit and Larson). Complimented Colleen Mahoney as an architect. Believes the placement and scale of building is not in proportion to adjacent structure on Dranit's property nor Smith/Price lot size. Confirmed with Building Official that per the Building Code, windows are not allowed to be within 5' of property line in Petaluma. Also addressed parking — has never seen 3 parked cars in tandem approved in the City. Susan Price: Responded to Mr. Oliker's letter of May 9 concerning comparable lot sizes and relative size of other accessory structures. She noted his analysis, found larger structures on larger lots and described ways to address privacy in urban setting. Planning Commission Minutes - May 9, 2000 Warren Dranit: 817 "D" — described relationship with neighbors and personal background. Expressed concern that the structure is "just too big ". Urged Planning Commission to consider merits of their appeal. Susan Dranit: 817 "D" — Thanked Planning Commission for taking time to visit proposed site. Stated they are not out to "kill proposal, just refine it ". Referred to her letter of March 27`" — described and clarified content. She expressed some lack of understanding of the plans; however, the story poles clarified the project — how it is out of character with surrounding building heights — particularly given reduced setback. Submitted a petition signed by 14 people — 7 neighbors. Architect Mahoney: Described her belief of how the proposed project is appropriate to the setting and neighborhood. Most houses are large — Dranit's house is small — most 2- story; some 3 story. A proposed small building over a 1 car garage is modest size project — argues not out of character. Would consider compromises offered by Planning Commission. Had meetings with staff — Jane Thomson, Hans Grunt, Betsi Lewitter. Smith - Prices' talked to Dranit's months before and offered to show plans. Architect Mahoney supports staff s findings. Ken Larson: 823 "D" — Supports comments from Dick Lieb. The proposal as depicted in letter and exhibit will diminish views of Sonoma Mountain from their 2" story. Susan Price: In response to Dranit's letter of March 27` revised proposal deleting windows and deck from plans to acknowledge neighbor's concerns. Sarah Willow: Neighbor — Has concerns with height of building and loss of privacy. Commissioner Broad: Is an advocate of neighbor's acknowledgment of proposals and would like to express need for full outreach to neighbors as part of the project review process, etc. for administrative approvals. Noted Conditional Use Permit null and void per Zoning Ordinance if not used within 12 months of approval. Addressed CEQA — believes the project is exempt — refer to staff report. Would like to have heard from Citv Attorney re: use of Variance vs Exception. As we experience more development we need to establish provisions that address impact to surrounding neighbors. Believes the structure is too high and is depicted by story poles applied. Suggested a 2 °d set of story poles should have been applied to rear of existing garage to further define the building measurements. Noted: dormers on common boundary side depict an overall wall height of 23' — too high; wall plate of 6' could be eliminated if living space is within roof with use of dormers to expand height. Commissioner Vieler: Questioned the CEQA exemption. Commissioner Glass: Acknowledged the concerns of neighbors regarding size of project and impact on surrounding neighbors — supports SPARC review to address described privacy, height and design. 4 Planning Commission Minutes - May 9, 2000 Commissioner Broad: Expressed his concerns that accessory dwelling units are subject to less stringent requirements than other conditional uses; the fact this proposed accessory dwelling unit is, as described by the applicants, to be used as an office initially rather than a dwelling, the extra height allowed in the Zoning Ordinance to encourage construction of accessory dwelling units is a concern, referred to language in Section 26- 509.2 of the Zoning Ordinance that Conditional Use Permits are null and void if use permitted by Conditional Use Permit not instituted within one year — since Smith/Price not intending to use as dwelling unit initially but rather as an office; City could be approving non - conforming structure. Commissioner Broad supported the CEQA exemption finding. Due to UGB and infill projects, higher densities will result. Need rigorous design solutions to ensure infill development's impact on neighborhoods are limited'. This proposal too high — mass and height could be mitigated through design. Cupola further accentuates height of structure. Council Rep. Cader- Thompson: Acknowledges that building is large and represents a huge intrusion on neighbors — the challenge is to address the height but maintain diversity and be pleasant for neighbors. Commissioner Vieler: Supports staff findings. The issue is one of the building's height — believes cupola is unnecessary given height concerns. Does not support appeal. Commissioner Barrett: Supports in -fill, however, need to be sensitive regarding the impact on neighborhood. Appreciates efforts by Smith/Price to provide a very good design and efforts to meet neighbors concerns by eliminating windows and deck. Feels the building is a little too large and should be reduced in height. Question appellant on what is acceptable regarding design — believes parking proposed is appropriate. Does not understand what Dranit's would accept — need to work with neighbors for acceptable solution. Disagrees with Architect Lieb's idea to add to footprint. Commissioner Feibusch: Agrees with staff — Lieb's photo is not representative. Design issues should be decided by SPARC — this appeal is a design issue — if height allowable, "so be it ". Commissioner Vieler: Suggested reducing height — allowable height of accccessory structure is 15 feet at midpoint and the allowable height of an accessory dwelling unit is 21 feet at midpoint. Commissioner Vieler suggested compromising with 18 feet. Stated that if no compromise is reached, Planning Commission would make decision. Committee: Discussed possible actions including denying the appeal and adding a condition requiring SPARC approval of the design. Susan Price: Expressed confusion as to what would be acceptable to the Dranits. Warren Dranit: Re: question from Commissioner Broad — would prefer to go to SPARC rather than return to the Planning Commission. 5 Planning Commission Minutes - May 9, 2000 Colleen Mahoney: Questioned how much longer process would take. She cited concerns regarding the clients' costs. She agreed to work to find a compromise. Commissioner Bennett: Summarized direction. The public hearing was closed. A motion was made by Commissioner Broad and seconded by Commissioner Glass to continue appeal to Planning Commission meeting of June 13` and allow both parties and/or architect time to try and reach compromise regarding design and direct staff to pencil in a date for SPARC agenda of June 22 "d in case no agreement was reached and refer the legal issues to the City Attorney. Commissioner Barrett: Yes Commissioner Broad: Yes Commissioner Cader- Thompson: Yes Commissioner Feibusch: No Commissioner Glass: Yes Commissioner Vieler: No Chairperson Bennett: Yes 11. LIAISON REPORTS: City Council (]C -T) SPARC ( ®G) Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee (WV) Tree Advisory Committee (TB) ADJOURNMENT: 10 :15 p.m. s \pc- plan \a .-enda \0509 on