HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/28/1997Planning Commission Minutes - January 28, 1997
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
46
CITY OF PETAL UMA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR VIEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY HALL - PETALUMA, CA
January 28, 1997
7:00 PM
Commissioners: Present: Bennett, Feibusch, Maguire, Thompson, vonRaesfeld, Wick *;
Absent: Rahman
Staff. Pamela Tuft. Planning Director
James McCann, Principal Planner
Jane Thomson, Senior Planning Technician
* Chairperson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of January 14, 1997 were approved with
corrections.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Introduction of Dylan Skerrett (Sonoma State University
Planning Intern).
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Wick - California EPA denied
Petaluma's certification for CUPA (Hazardous Material Regulations) - citizens group
meeting with Fire Marshal to discuss appeal to State; Commissioner Bennett - Attended a
Chamber of Commerce meeting today in support of above appeal to State.
CORRESPONDENCE: Willow Glen Subdivision informational packet.
APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on agenda.
Planning Commission Minutes - January 28, 1997
1 NEW BUSINESS:
2 PUBLIC HEARING:
3
4 I• COMPAGNO ACCESSORY DWELLING; STEVE COMPAGNO; 511 G
5 STREET; AP NO. 008-261-009.
6
7 Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to legalize an existing 539 sq.ft.
8 accessory dwelling unit that was created when the 1,285 sq.ft. existing residence
9 at 511 G Street was converted into two units without appropriate City permits.
10
I 1 Senior Planning Technician Thomson presented the staff report.
12
13 Commissioner Maguire - In future plans should include improvements and addresses on
14 adjacent properties.
15 Commissioner Maguire - Where are adjacent neighbors buildings located?
16 Senior Planning Technician Thomson - Indicated approximate building locations.
17 Commissioner Bennett - Would staff have supported this project if building permits had
18 been requested prior to constructing the addition?
19 Planning Director Tuft -Yes, through General Plan intent staff is generally supportive of
20 in -fill development.
21 Commissioner Bennett - Questions regarding required parking.
22 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Is this an accessory dwelling or a duplex?
23 Planning Director Tuft - It is an accessory dwelling attached to a single- family dwelling;
24 R -C zone requires one covered and one uncovered parking space for a single - family
25 dwelling; one space for each bedroom of the accessory dwelling; therefore, five spaces (2
26 covered) required for these three dwelling units on this parcel.
27 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Is there an easement for a driveway serving the rear (flag)
28 lot ?; would like to see where useable open space is to be located; where is new parking
29 space to be located - should be designated on the site plan.
30 Senior Planning Technician Thomson - Described where open space proposed for all
31 units.
32
33 The public hearing was opened.
34
35 SPEAKERS:
36
37 Lind_ - 902 F Street - Applicant's Architect - Project conforms in all respects to
38 Zoning Ordinance; regarding the proposed CUP conditions - no problems with time
39 frame required; regarding parking requirements - requests that staffs recommendation for
40 an additional covered space be deleted (this recommendation is not related to the
41 "impact" created by Mr. Compagno's request for an accessory unit; condition of the
42 property has greatly improved since Mr. Compagno purchased this property.
43 Commissioner Bennett - (To Ms. Kade) - Were you the original architect for this project?
44 Linda Kade No, I was not.
2
Planning Commission Minutes - January 28, 1997
1 Commissioner Maguire - What was the condition of the accessory unit (area) prior to
2 purchase /work by the applicant?
3 Steve Compagno - 1020 Rancho Lindo Drive - Applicant - Applied originally for permit
4 for new perimeter foundation; project grew - got out of control; regarding fence - spoke to
5 both neighbors, not opposed to sharing cost of a new fence if price is reasonable.
6 Commissioner Maguire - Did you alter the footprint of the house when you repaired the
7 foundation?
8 Steve Compagno - Yes, somewhat.
9 Commissioner Bennett - Why didn't you apply for permits to add accessory dwelling
10 unit?
1 -1 Steve Compagno - I made a mistake and an error in judgment.
12 Commissioner Feibusch - Is there a utility easement in area of the deck?
13 Steve Compagno - I don't believe so.
14 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Can you indicate old footprint on the overhead graphic?
15 (Staff supplied graphic of original and new footprints - graphics revealed that fairly
16 substantial square footage was added.)
17 Julie Thompson - 515 G Street, neighbor to the west - Would ideally like the unit to
18 remain as a single- family dwelling with no accessory dwelling; concerns regarding
19 privacy; would like a quality fence - offered to design and build fence if Mr. Compagno
20 pays for materials.
21 Nels Berchtold - 515 G Street - Density is an issue - simply too much is occurring on this
22 small property; covered parking (garage) is not being utilized for parking - there are
23 laundry facilities in one covered space; noise level to his backyard has drastically
24 increased; there are frequently 6 or 7 cars on the property.
25 Martha Joyce - 515 1/2 G Street - there is an easement over 515 G Street to her property;
26 just heard about this hearing last week, not enough time to prepare; parking is a problem;
27 cannot park on the street - deck on front unit should be removed or at least disguised by
28 tree planting; everyone would benefit from a new fence, willing to share cost.
29 Steve Compagno For the record, Ms. Joyce's parking problems have nothing to do with
30 his project.
31 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Does staffs parking count agree with architect's parking
32 space count?
33 Response - The site is tight for maneuvering but the spaces are delineated.
34 Commissioner Maguire Can a deck be counted as usable open space?
35 Planning Director Tuft - Referenced Zoning Ordinance text on useable open space;
36 answer, yes, a deck is counted.
37 Commissioner Thompson - I am ready to make a motion to deny this project.
38 Commissioner Maguire - Would like to continue this discussion; questions regarding fees
i9 - since work was done without approvals, will there be a fine ?; the applicant does not live
40 on this property, this is a commercial venture, owner should pay for entire cost of fence
4:1 and additional trees; need to mitigate parking space intrusion onto adjacent property;
42 would like tree planting along deck - applicant needs to pay for all improvements, costs
43 do not need to be shared; City needs to encourage creation of smaller units.
44 Commissioner Bennett - Applicant should make all improvements suggested by
45 Commissioner Maguire and pay for all improvements; keep all staff conditions.
3
Planning Commission Minutes - January 28, 1997
1 Commissioner Feibusch - By approving this after the fact - will this encourage others to
2 by -pass permitting process?
3 Commissioner Thompson - Will be voting to deny this project.
4 Commissioner vonRaesfeld - Will also be voting to deny; parking and on -site circulation
5 questions /problems exist; proposal presents inadequate useable open space - front yard
6 shouldn't be considered entire open space; cannot support this project - too intense of a
7 use for this neighborhood; applicant made a fairly significant addition without permits;
8 no space left for trash enclosure, vehicle movement, etc.: simply too much on this site.
9 Commissioner Wick - Will also be voting no; visited the site twice, it was fully parked;
10 cannot consider proposed parking spaces 4 and 5 as adequate spaces; too many cars
11 because of number of units; not enough open space; will not work with three units: too
12 intense for the site.
13 Commissioner Maguire - Hasn't been to the site; feels parking spaces proposed «ill be
14 adequate; approval of this will not set a precedent; applicant should pay for all
15 improvements proposed by staff if this is approved.
16 Commissioner Wick - Reiterated that inadequate useable open space will be provided;
17 also stated that; 8' high fences create a tunnel -like effect in small lots.
18 Commissioner Bennett - Procedural question - if our vote is 3 -3, is project denied or
19 approved? (Answer: the motion fails to pass.).
20
21 The public hearing was closed.
22
23 A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner
24 vonRaesfeld to deny the requested Conditional Use Permit for an accesson: dwelling at
25 511 "G" Street based on the following findings:
26
27 Commissioner Maguire: No
28 Commissioner Bennett: No
29 Commissioner Feibusch: Yes
30 Commissioner Rahman: Absent
31 Commissioner Thompson: Yes
32 Commissioner vonRaesfeld: Yes
33 Chairman Wick: Yes
34
35 Findings
36
37 1. The proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to authorize the legalization of an
38 existing accesson- dwelling unit of 539 sq.ft. at 511 G Street «ill conform to
39 the requirements and/or intent of the Petaluma General Plan. in that:
40
41 a. The proposal would not improve existing traffic and parking congestion
42 on G Street: `
43
44 b. The input and involvement by the neighbors at the public hearing were
45 negative in nature, requesting denial of the proposal. `
46
47 2. The proposed CUT to authorize the legalization of an existing accessory dwelling
48 unit of 539 sq.ft. at 511 G Street will not meet the conditions necessary for a CUP
4
Planning Commission Minutes - January 28, 1997
to be granted per Zoning Ordinance Article 7. and Sections 20 -300, 21 -300, and
2
21 -408, in that:
3
4
a. A CUP is required to be approved before the commencement of any
,. 5
construction (the dwelling unit was constructed without obtaining a CUP);
6
7
b. The addition to the rear of the existing single family residence of
8
approximately 210 square feet to accommodate a 539 square foot
9
accessory dwelling unit, is in close proximity to the dwelling unit on the
10
adjacent property, and therefore compromises the outlook, light, air and
11
peace and quiet of the adjoining residence;
12
13
C. The addition of a third dwelling unit creates unmitigated impacts relative
14
to parking and circulation to the residents in the immediate vicinity and on
15
the adjacent surface street;
16
17
d. The site, due to the limited area available to accommodate open space,
18
parking and vehicular circulation. is unable to accommodate the proposed
19
intensification of use by the addition of an accessory dwelling unit with
20
associated parking;
21
22
e. The required parking of 2 covered and 3 uncovered spaces cannot be
23
accomplished without unduly awkward vehicle access and circulation, and
24
without impact to the single family- dwelling on the adjacent landlocked
} 25
parcel which shares the driveway;
26
27
f. There is inadequate area available in a practical or functional location to
28
satisfy the useable open space requirement (100 sq.ft. minimum) for all
29
three units on the site;
30
31
g The deck at the rear of the dwelling unit proposed as the primary useable
32
open space is unacceptable as it would unnecessarily and unreasonably
33
impact the privacy of the neighbors:
34
35
h. The addition of an accessory dwelling unit will constitute a nuisance and
36
will be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood, due to the
37
increased traffic, and noise and intensity of use in this otherwise single -
38
family residential area. y
39
40 3.
The denial of the Conditional Use Permit to authorize the legalization of an
91
accessory dwelling unit of 539 sq.ft. at 511 G Street is exempt from the
` 42
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
43
Section 15270(a) of CEQA which exempts from review projects which are
44
disapproved.
45
46
47 CONNINXIISSION DISCUSSION
48
49 II. DISCUSSION OF 1997 PLANNING ACTIVITIES, GOALS AND ISSUES.
50
1
Planning Commission Minutes - January 28, 1997
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
Commissioner Wick - Council would like to have joint meeting/input regarding goals for
1997; Planning Commission has much on its "plate" already; five large efforts on- going;
we shouldn't add or suggest any additional projects of significance until « finished
what we've undertaken already; mid -term review of General Plan would be a good way
to raise any new issues.
Commissioner Bennett - There hasn't been this much going on at one time in the last 15
years; what else could/should we add ?; Agree that we should remain focussed on existing
projects without adding more.
Commissioner Maguire - Issues should be channeled through the General Plan review;
we already have many very exciting projects on- going.
General Plan Work Plan will be agendized for early spring meeting.
III. STATUS REPORT:
1. Willow Glen - Tentatively scheduled for February 25th meeting.
2. Agenda Forecast - Distributed.
3. APA Conference Attendance - Information will be distributed.
Background information will be distributed on Galland Street group home prior to
meeting of February 25th.
IV. LIAISON REPORTS:
1. Bicycle Committee - Commissioner Thompson - Rode the
Washington/101 quadrant and Casa Grande area - Bike Plan is beginning
to take shape.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:45 PM
min0128 / plan75
6