Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/13/2000Planning Commission Minutes - June 13, 2000 L tr City of Petaluma, California C� �? City Council Chambers City Hall, 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498 8 5 $ E -Mail planning(cDei.petaluma.ca.us Web Page http: / /www.ci.petaluma.ca.us Planning Commission Minutes .Dune 13, 2000 — 7:00 PM Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Bennett*, Broad, Cader - Thompson, Feibusch, Glass, Vieler * Chair Staff. Mike Moore, Community Development Director Betsi Lewitter, Contract Planner ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of May 9, 2000 were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENT: Jeff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive. Water rights groups— County makes powerful block for seeking grants to buy flood -prone properties. Brings to attention of community. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: CORRESPONDENCE: Letter of June 13 from neighbors Linda Adams and Ken Larson to Dick Lieb, Architect. 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. LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda. s\ p lanningcommission \minutes06l300 1 7/10/00 Planning Commission Minutes - June 13, 2000 NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUED BUSINESS: I. SMITH/PRICE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Continued Public Hearing on appeal of administrative approval of Conditional Use Permit and Exception to allow construction of an accessory dwelling unit as a second story on an existing garage located 1" 10" from the southern side property line rather than the required 4'. 815 D Street — PAN 008 - 292 -003. Betsi Lewitter presented the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Commissioner Broad: Had questions re: attorney's opinions — variance vs exceptions and use. Susan Price: Refers to Oliker's letter of May 31 She expressed concern that there had been a misunderstanding. She asked the Dranits to meet. They referred her to their attorney. Others neighbors, Sarah Willow, thought 3' reduction reasonable. Ken Larson commented -3 ft reduction — "It makes a world of difference." Other neighbors say design great as is. Refers to accessory structure across the street which is 25 ft. tall. Colleen Mahoney: A lot of effort has been spent on the project. Her notes from the last meeting — height too high, reduce mass by reducing plate height. Wayne wanted parties to reach compromise and suggested middle ground between 21 & 15 feet —18 feet is what revised plans show. States how arrived at 18 feet — completely redrew plans — lowered plate height and floor. Building needs to meet building code re: interior heights. Issues related to Oliker. No suggestions forwarded to her from Dranits. Commissioner Barrett: Asked Colleen if she received 5/31 letter from Oliker? Yes — wrote a response. Commissioner Barrett notes also received letters from Lieb and Ms. Clark. Staff Betsi Lewitter advises Lieb's letter and Clark's report were not received by staff. Iry Piotrokowski: Attorney representing Price /Smith. Very small project — dwelling unit under. 600 sq. ft. Reviews CEQA exempt and Zoning allows administrative approval and exceptions. Consistent with Zoning and General Plan. Applicant should be able to rely on Zoning and General Plan. If granted appeal, it would set precedent of requiring SPARC review and demonstrate that you can't rely on zoning and General Plan. Stated it was unfortunate that they need legal counsel for such a small project and it deserves the Planning Commission's support. Suggests upholding Zoning and General Plan, staff's efforts. Asks that the appeal be denied. s\ planningcommission \minutes061300 2 7/10/00 Planning Commission Minutes - June 13, 2000 Dick Lieb: Asked by the Dranits to study plans in light of zoning and give an opinion. Refers to Susan Clark letter, a historian who does work on EIR's re: impact on historic structures and distributes something to the Planning Commission re: parking 4 cars in tandem. Practical point of view — accessory dwelling unit occupant would park on the street. Heard could park 2 cars side by side — 18.5' — won't fit. Does Planning Commission want to allow removal of landscaping to park cars side by side? Robert Oliker: Attorney for appellant. Notes Clark's letter says structure should be 21'. Colleen presented modifications — would not accept any other suggestions. Notes accessory dwelling unit not permitted use — no inherent rights — discretionary approval. States structure should be reduced to 21'. Urges if deny appeal — condition approval on 21' overall height. Parking — set precedent if allow 4 cars in tandem. Commissioner Feibusch: Asked to clarify who was present at the negotiations meeting. Warren Dranit: Apologies that Lieb's letter and Clark's not given to staff and project proponents. Notes Planning Commission directed parties to negotiate solution. Decided better for attorneys to meet first due to acrimony between neighbors. Reviewed with Lieb ways to reduce height. Revised plans drawn before meeting. Colleen should have waited for their input before doing new plans. Didn't have opportunity for negotiation. Not trying to stop them from building something — 21 feet to ridge reasonable. Consistent with other units in area. Reduced 3 feet, removed windows and deck, using stained glass to preserve privacy — but still want reduced to 21 feet. Notes Wayne suggested 18 feet (average between ridge and eave) but building will be 23 feet high — not average of 18 feet. Spoke to neighbors — 23 feet reasonable but think 21 feet better. More impact on their property. They ( Dranits) would prefer cupola eliminated and states they have made concessions. Every foot of the building height encloses them. Difficult to back out 1 car much less 4. In summary — does not want to stop project — reduce to 21 feet. Didn't feel they had the opportunity to negotiate and were closed out of the process. Terry Kosewic: 826 D Street. Had some problems with his carriage house. Was told it was too high and to apply for 2 nd unit in order to have larger structure. Was denied by Planning Commission and City Council; at that time the zoning ordinance allowed accessory structures to be 15' or 1 `/2 stories. Accessory structures allowed to be 3/5` of a primary. Code didn't address principal building heights. Because D Street doesn't allow accessory dwelling units (due to neighbor opposition), code should allow 2 nd story office in accessory structure. Susan Price: Cupola was not removed because tonight was the first time the Dranit's requested — was not clear that they didn't want it. Shows photo of building drawn in from Larson's property. Re: parking, the current code doesn't require independent movement — could accommodate by removal of landscaping. Usage — accessory dwelling unit applied for — yes, use for office at this time. Option for elderly parents to reside there. The public hearing was closed. s\ planningcommission \minutes06li00 3 7/10 /00 Planning Commission Minutes - June 13, 2000 Discussion followed: Commissioner Broad: Asked Mike Moore re: proposed tandem parking. Mike Moore: Discussed with Allen Tilton, City's Traffic Engineer. Had some concerns because of D Street, but concerns were not based on technical issues. In staff s opinion, tandem parking not a previous issue — many instances all over town where there are more cars than spaces. Commissioner Vieler: Had to leave early — would like to vote. Wants appeal denied — approves project at 23 feet height, no SPARC, no cupola. Commissioner Broad: Notes applying for Conditional Use Permit but no intention of using as accessory dwelling unit — long term use to be study. Can't approve since would be non - conforming in 1 -2 years. His opinion is height of structure would exacerbate impact on Dranit's property. Design should consider impact on neighbors. Recognizes significant changes to plan by lowering — but still too much mass when viewed from Dranit's side. If approved — 21 feet to ridge and no cupola. Commissioner Glass: Major concern not to be used as an accessory dwelling unit — need to rely on Zoning and General Plan; 21 feet allowed for dwelling unit, but applicant stated not to be used for dwelling unit. Should not approve if not going to be used for use applied for. Doesn't meet housing needs — exceeds height limit for accessory structure. Agrees with Gary's restrictions if approved. Commissioner Cader- Thompson: Notes Susan Clark letter stating structure would be out of proportion for neighborhood. Disagrees — large houses in area — not out of proportion — 23 feet reasonable reduction compromise made. Likes cupola and likes design — fits in with Price /Smith parcel. Agrees with question of what use is going to be. Commissioner Feibusch: Agrees with Commissioner Cader- Thompson re approving — compromise made by reducing 3 feet. Cupola not critical. Use — making assumptions — shouldn't make assumption about what use will be in 1 or 2 years. Deny appeal per staff recommendations. Commissioner Barrett: Agrees with Commissioner Cader- Thompson — tremendous amount of compromise. Should have been worked out between parties instead of coming back to Planning Commission. Could have been more direct communication from Dranits to Smith/Price. Impact on Dranit's property not nearly as severe as it could be. Likes cupola — improve Larson's view. Re: use — dangerous to make assumptions about what will happen. If used as dwelling, should be conforming so someone could live there legally. Deny appeal. Commissioner Bennett: Hearing four votes to deny appeal. Asks staff re: position on use as dwelling unit. s\ planningeommission \minutes061300 4 7/10/00 Planning Commission Minutes - June 13, 2000 Mike Moore: Notes zoning allows 1 year to commence use, another year extension. Technically would be in violation. Won't go out to check, but would act on complaint and could revoke Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Bennett: Accessory dwelling unit being approved — has to be used within 1 year or requires extension. Accessory dwelling unit encouraged. Test of reasonability — no one wants dwelling unit next to them. Reduction of height to, 21 feet — consensus 2 yes. Commissioner Glass: Notes previous motion required SPARC review if no agreement reached between parties. Notes architect on SPARC should deal with design issues. Commissioner Bennett: Previous Commission motion was ambiguous regarding SPARC review. Mike Moore: Could reach different conclusion based on testimony tonight. Commissioner Barrett: SPARC if no compromise suggested. Commissioner Bennett: Interpretation of minutes. Doesn't think majority thought it required SPARC since compromise proposed. Further discussion regarding SPARC. Commissioner Vieler: Missing in Mav 9 minutes — he stated that if no compromise reached, Planning Commission would make decision. A motion was made by Commissioner Broad and seconded by Commissioner Glass to deny the appeal and impose additional conditions requiring SPARC review at June 22 meeting to look at design of accessory dwelling unit. Commissioner Barrett: Asked if motion fails, can another motion to deny appeal be made? Commissioner Bennett: If motion passes, it's over. Discussion re: what SPARC would look at. Mike Moore: Asks expectations of SPARC. Commissioner Broad: No landscape plan, height and massing, lighting, parking and circulation, privacy and cupola. Motion failed on a 4 -3 vote with Broad, Bennett and Glass dissenting. s \plannin ,commission \minutes061300 5 7/10/00 Planning Commission Minutes - June 13, 2000 Commissioner Barrett: Yes Commissioner Broad: No Commissioner Cader- Thompson: Yes Commissioner Feibusch: Yes Commissioner Glass: No Commissioner Vieler: Yes Commissioner Bennett: No A motion was made by Commissioner Barrett and seconded by Commissioner Vieler to deny the appeal and uphold the administrative approval of a Conditional Use permit and Exception based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Barrett: Yes Commissioner Broad: No Commissioner Cader- Thompson: Yes Commissioner Feibusch: Yes Commissioner Glass: No Commissioner Vieler: Yes Chairperson Bennett: Yes Commissioner Broad: City's goal of accessory dwelling unit noble — wants more mechanism to ensure to be used as accessory dwelling unit as applied for. Asks staff to look at ways to amend zoning to develop ways of ensuring. Commissioner Cader- Thompson: If not by Planning Commission would have been approved by staff — what's oversight? Go to SPARC or develop criteria. Commissioner Barrett: Something needs to be addressed in General Plan. Commissioner Cader- Thompson: Meanwhile, need to address. CEQA Finding: The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, which allows construction of small structures. Findings for Exception 1. The encroachment is consistent with the prevalent development pattern in the immediate area. The surrounding properties have structures that are also located within the required setbacks. 2. The encroachment will not adversely affect the privacy of neighboring properties because the second -story accessory dwelling unit and garage addition will be adjacent to the neighbor's garage. In addition, the southern elevation does not contain any windows. s\ planninecommission \minutes061300 6 7/10/00 Planning Commission Minutes - June 13, 2000 3. The encroachment will not significantly increase shading of adjacent properties. The existing garage is located on the southern side of the lot; the structure, proposed to be less than the maximum allowable height limit, will not block the morning or afternoon sun. 4. Maintenance and drainage needs are accommodated by the existing 1' 10" side yard setback. 5 The design of the accessory building or structure is compatible with that of the principal dwelling and will not detract from appearance of the immediate area. The project has been designed to duplicate features found on the existing principal dwelling to make it more compatible than the existing accessory structure and to enhance the historic aspect of the property. Findings for Conditional Use Permit 1. The proposed accessory dwelling unit, with approval of an Exception to side yard setbacks, meets the requirements of Zoning Ordinance Section 21 -408 with regards to size, off - street parking, open space and architectural compatibility. 2. The proposed accessory dwelling unit conforms to the intent of the Petaluma General Plan. Specifically, the accessory dwelling unit aides in the provision of a range of housing types and housing for persons of all economic levels. 3. The proposed accessory dwelling unit will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community, because the design is consistent with the existing single- family dwelling on the site and the location of the accessory dwelling unit protects the privacy of the neighbors. 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: Water Connection Fee Contact Water Field Office at 778 -4392 to determine adequacy of existing meter. Sewer Connection Fee $1,195.00 Storm Drainage Impact N/A (existing garage) Dwelling Construction $120.00 Traffic Mitigation $1,885.00 School Facilities Contact School District at 778 -4621 for fees. Conditions of Approval: From the Planning Department: s\ planningcommission \mimnes061300 7 7/10/00 Planning Commission Minutes - June 13, 2000 Approval is granted to allow construction of a second -story, 576 square foot accessory dwelling unit above an existing garage and a 90 square foot addition at the rear of the garage. The construction shall be substantially as shown on the plans received in the Planning Department on June 1, 2000, except as modified by these conditions. 2. Pursuant to Section 20-404 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance, the driveway and parking area shall be paved with a durable, dustless surface prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3. The colors and materials of the addition and accessory dwelling unit shall match the existing garage and compliment the principal dwelling. 4. External downspouts shall be painted to match background- building colors. Scuppers without drainage pipes may not be installed because of probable staining of walls (overflow scuppers are excepted). 5. Any exterior lights shall be shown on the plans submitted for building permit. All lights attached to buildings shall provide a soft "wash" of light against the wall and shall compliment the building architecture. 6. Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, hours of construction. etc.). All work within a public right -of -way requires an excavation permit from the Department of Public Works. This Conditional Use Permit may be recalled to the Planning Department for review at any time due to complaints regarding lack of compliance with conditions of approval, noise or odor generation or any other adverse operating characteristics. At such time, the Planning director may revoke this approval or add/modify conditions of approval. 9. 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 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. From the Fire Marshal (778- 4389)• s\ planningcommission \minutes061300 8 7/10/00 Planning Commission Minutes - June 13, 2000 10. The distance from D Street to the furthest wall of the structure exceeds 150'; therefore, a 13 -1) fire sprinkler system is required. 11. Smoke detectors shall be installed per the UBC. From the Building Division (778 -4302) 12. All exterior walls less than 3 feet from the property line must be a fire resistive construction assembly, and no windows and doors are allowed per CBC/ JBC Chapter 5. 11. LIAISON REPORTS: City Council (]C -T): Budget submitted on time — projects 5 Year's in future — 26th to review and adopt 30 days after that. SPARC ( ®G) Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee (WV) Tree Advisory Committee (TB): Met with neighbors group on 6th between I and Mountain View. Trying to help increase number of trees. ADJOURNMENT: 8:30 p.m. s\ planningcommission \minutes061300 9 7110100