HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/12/1994171
1
2
3
4
5
e
9
1
_flJr
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING April 12, 1994
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M.
CITY FALL PETALUMA, CA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
ROLL CALL: Bennett *, Parkerson, Rahman, Shea, Thompson, Torliatt, vonRaesfeld
STAFF: Pamela Tuft, Planning Director
Jim McCann, Principal Planner
Chairman
MINUTES OF March 15 and March 22, 1994 were approved as corrected.
22
23 PUBLIC COMMENT: (15 minutes maximum).
24
5 The Commission will hear public comments only on matters over which they have
6 jurisdiction. There will be no Commission discussion or action. The chairman will allot no
NEW-
7 more than five minutes to any individual. If more than three persons wish to speak, their
28 time will be allotted so that the total amount of time allocated to this agenda item will be
29 15 minutes.
30
31 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: APA National Conference information.
32
33 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: None.
34
35 CORRESPONDENCE: None.
36
37 APPEAL STATEMENT: Was read.
38
39 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was noted on the agenda.
40
41 CONSENT AGENDA: Items recommended for consideration under the Consent Calendar
42 are considered to be routine in nature by staff and are recommended to be acted upon by a
43 single motion by the Planning Commission at the beginning of the meeting with no further
44 discussion. The item may, however, be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion
45 in its normal order on the agenda by the applicant, a Commissioner, or an interested
46 member of the public by a simple request.
47
r•w •�
I ,
172 Planning Commission Minutes - April 12, 1994
NEW BUSINESS
CONSENT AGENDA
I. KNUDSON; 410 SUNNYSLOPE AVENUE; PUD INTERPRETATION; AP NO.
019- 140 -055.
Authorization to create an 18,000 +/- sq.ft. parcel per Resolution 91 -152.
A motion was made by Commissioner Rahman and seconded by Commissioner Parkerson
to recommend to the City Council approval of the creation of a second (18,000 sq.ft.) lot at
410 Sunnyslope Avenue.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes
Note: Italics = Addition
OvefstFike = Deletion
NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING:
II. WEDERTZ; VARIANCE /CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; FILE NO.'s VAR94001
AND CUP94002; 915 I STREET; APN 008- 401 -041.
Consideration of a request to allow the conversion of an accessory building into a
living unit, thereby creating a 2 -unit dwelling group and a Variance to allow the
F proposed new dwelling unit to encroach into the required 20' rear yard. The
actions are requested:
1. A determination that the request is exempt from CEQA.
2. A Variance to authorize a dwelling unit to encroach 16 -1/2' into the required
20' rear yard.
3. A Conditional Use Permit to authorize the establishment of a two -unit
dwelling group.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Principal Planner Jim McCann - Presented the staff report.
Chairman Bennett - Clarified Council direction and General Plan policies regarding in -fill
development; Question regarding difference between accessory dwelling ( "Granny Unit ")
and Dwelling Group.
Ralph Wedertz - Applicant - This unit will provide a home for his mother -in -law; when no
longer occupied by mother -in -law, intends to convert to a guest house; rumors in
neighborhood regarding increase in crime, parking problems, etc. if this unit is allowed are
2
Planning Commission Minutes - April 12, 1994
1 overstated: mother -in -law doesn't drive, is very quiet; questions regarding suggested
2 conditions.
3 Mike Sisemore - 1 Maier Lane - Concerns regarding legal rental unit being created in the
4 future; could be very disruptive to neighborhood if someone other than Mr. Wedertz's
5 mother -in -law is renting unit; building looks like a garage and is an eyesore; will have a
6 negative affect on neighborhood in time; value of homes in neighborhood may go down if
7 second unit is allowed.
8 Mark Tickler - 930 I Street - Agrees with proposed use, but agrees that in future a rental
9 unit could become a detriment to neighborhood; building is already 1,400 sq.ft., easy to
10 convert garage into more bedrooms; not enough on- street parking now, may be less if
11 second unit is allowed; nature of neighborhood may deteriorate.
Terry Martinez - Prudential Realty - Agent who handled Wedertz's purchase of property;
( there. are other second units in neighborhood; Wedertz's will make improvements in a very
tasteful manner.
Carolyn D'Amore - 917 I Street - Parents original owners of property; has lived in
neighborhood for 42 years; new owners have made improvements to property; change does
occur in all neighborhoods; Wedertz's are good neighbors; supports request.
Kathleen Schmeltz - 2 Maier Lane - When this building was built, no one notified
neighbors; building is an eyesore now; Maier is a busy street; unit overhang is only 1'6"
20 from her property line; no other units this close in the area.
21 Cleve Masad - 1155 1 Street - The Wedertz's have been fixing up their property, this will be
22 an improvement to the neighborhood - good neighbors, people, not buildings count in
23 neighborhood; supports request.
24 Barbara Maddack - 712 Olive - Concerns with precedent; will others be allowed to build
25 second units in this area.
26 Joe Kelly - Applicant's contractor - This unit will not be a rental; windows are needed for
27 adequate ventilation; the only construction that has been done is the addition of a sliding
28 door; exterior will change very little.
29 Jim North - 920 1 Street - concerns in future with property becoming a rental unit; no
30 second /rental units in area now (delivers mail in area); concerns for future use.
31 Planning Director Pamela Tuft - A recorded deed restriction could be placed on property
32 to restrict unit from becoming an unrestricted rental (only allow relatives of property
33 owners to live in building); improvements could be required through the CUP to improve
34 exterior of building.
35
36 The public hearing was closed.
37
38 Commission Discussion City policy encourages in -fill units; City has not required deed
39 restriction in other, cases - we should be consistent; CUP condition regarding recall can be
40 used; If this was a request for a second unit for rental with no mother -in -law involved, what
41 would staff's recommendation be?
42 Planning Director Tuft - Recommendation would be the same.
43 Commissioner Rahman - I would not vote for a deed restriction.
44 Commissioner Thompson - Not in favor of requiring a deed restriction.
45 Commission Discussion Accessory dwellings (in -fill) are strongly encouraged by the
46 General Plan; this is a reasonable request, staff recommended conditions are reasonable;
47 concerns for future use (no concerns with existing proposal); do not want this to become a
48 nuisance; this can be recalled if problems occur in the future; control will remain with the
49 City because of standard CUP recall condition; could the number of persons /bedrooms be
50 restricted ?; would not like to make this a uniquely different rental unit by adding
51 conditions /restrictions; potential to easily create more living space (in garage); restriction
52 of 816 sq.ft. maximum needs to be an added condition.
1 53
173
3
174
Planning Commission Minutes - April 12, 1994
A motion was made by Commissioner Parkerson and seconded by Commissioner Rahman
that this project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA and to grant a Variance and
Conditional Use Permit based on the following amended findings and conditions:
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Yes
Variance Findings
1. There are peculiar and unusual conditions inherent in the property in question
sufficient to cause a hardship, and that such conditions are not common to all or
most of the properties in the immediate area.
2. A hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists.
In this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits,
and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance.
3. Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the
vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of
the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors.
4. The authorizing of such variance shall not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this ordinance or the public
interest.
Conditional Use Permit Findings
1. The proposed project, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent
of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance.
2. The proposed project, as conditioned, will conform to the requirements and intent,
goals, and policies of the Petaluma General Plan.
3. The proposed project will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public
welfare of the community.
4. This project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Section 15303, New Construction
of Small Structures.
Conditional Use Permit Conditions
1. All roof vents shall be painted to match the existing roof.
2.------- o-ev�ixdos- shall- be- irtalled- $leng {�thei lildigall e£ �b��ece�sery
b*ildtffg
2. The swimming pool shall be enclosed, with access by a self - closing, self - latching
gate.
4
Planning Commission Minutes - April 12, 1994
1
2
3.
In residential buildings less than 3,400 sq.ft. in floor area, provide fire suppression
3
system at normal sources of ignition. These areas are specifically at clothes dryers,
4
kitchen stoves, furnaces, water heaters, fireplaces and in attic areas at vents and
5
chimneys for these appliances and equipment.
6
7
4.
A building permit for the remodel work shall be required.
8
9
5.
The second dwelling unit shall be subject to Administrative SPARC review,
10
including placement of windows on the south elevation.
1
6.
Separate gas and electric meters shall be installed for the proposed second dwelling
to the specifications of PG &E prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
5
7.
Construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance and
: 7
Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.).
qczk
8.
This project shall be responsible for the payment of Special Development Fees
adopted by the Petaluma City Council for sewer and water connection, Community
20
Facilities Development, Dwelling Construction, School Facilities, Traffic Mitigation,
21
and any other applicable fees.
22
23
9.
The applicants/ developers shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or
24
any of its boards, commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action
25
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
1 26
27
28
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
29
claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. Nothing
30
contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a defense of
31
any claim, action, or proceedin* if the City bears its own attorney's fees and costs,
32
and the City defends the action in good faith.
33
34
10.
This use permit may be recalled to the Planning Commission for review at any time
35
due to complaints regarding lack of compliance with conditions of approval, traffic
36
congestion, noise generation, or other adverse operating characteristics. At such
37
time, the Commission may revoke the use permit or add /modify conditions of
38
approval.
39
40
11.
No expansion of living area (over 816 sq.ft.) or deviation from plans contained in CUP
41
file is authorized.
42
43
44
III.
EUGENE PREMO; DREES BASSETT /UPIIAM PARCEL MAP VARIANCE; FILE
45
NO. PCL93007; 201 BASSETT STREET; APN 008 - 094 -009.
46
47
Consideration of a request to subdivide a 12,600 sq. ft. property at 201 Bassett Street
48
into three residential lots. The existing single - family home will be retained on
49
proposed Lot 1. The following actions are requested:
50
51
1. Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
175
5
176 Planning Commission Minutes - April 12, 1994
2. Three Variances to allow: a) the creation of Lots 1 and 2 with reduced
lot depths of 97' and 97 1/2' respectively where 100' is required and; b)
a rear yard depth on Lot 1 of 15' -20' where 25' is required.
3. A Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the property into three residential lots.
Commissioner vonRaesfeld stepped down due to conflict of interest.
The public hearing was opened.
SPEAKERS:
Principal Planner Jim McCann presented the staff report.
Robert Oliker - Attorney representing Mary Grady - Advised Commission of a property
line dispute between applicant and Ms. Grady; requests Commission denial without
prejudice tonight until property line dispute can be settled.
Ken Gabriel - General contractor /representative for applicant (Mr. Premo); survey has
been done by a registered /licensed surveyor; would be willing to move fence at Mr.
Premo's expense; wants to be a "good neighbor "; building permits issued for units now; if all
under one ownership on one lot, new units will be rentals.
Mary Grady - 209 Bassett - Thanked Planning staff for information /help; variances are not
needed, the neighborhood does not want small lots.
Theresa Barrett - 335 Bassett - Degradation of neighborhood has already occurred
because of destruction of 100 -year old garden; this project will affect neighborhood; same
applicant is proposing 2 more units in the same neighborhood; not quality homes; can't this
be done tastefully?
Tom Hamilton - 126 Upham - concerns with over - building of neighborhood; no sensitivity
to existing neighbors.
Larry Potts - 101 Bassett - beautiful gardens have been destroyed; trees already removed;
cannot understand how non - conforming conditions can be created in older neighborhoods;
do not grant variances.
Robert Oliker Property area is based on assumed property line rather than fence line -
300 sq.ft. (100'x 3') may not belong to project.
Rich Johnson - Realtor for Premo /Drees - These lots are not smaller than many others in
West Petaluma: would like this to be approved contingent on lot line dispute being settled.
Laura Teschera - 306 Bassett - Over -fill; whole neighborhood has been dramatically
affected; neighborhood has spent a lot of time restoring houses; some "good old boys" stuff
is going on here; someone is helping someone here; everyone else has to jump through
"hoops ".
Planning Director Tuft - Permits have been issued, property line question is a civil matter;
regarding "good old boy situation" - no special treatment has been provided to this
applicant and in fact more scrutiny has occurred on this project than most; City encourages
renovation of older homes and staff attempts to streamline process for single - family
residences.
Chairman Bennett - The only issue before the Commission is the subdivision of the
property into 3 lots - not the construction of additional homes; the home construction was
approved by City Council last year.
Planning Director Tuft - Option exists to create 2 lots only (1 with 2 homes, 1 with 1
house); General Plan supports in -fill; impressed by architecture of proposed units.
Mary Grady - Last ditch effort to hope that only one house will be built and only 2 lots will
be created; also concerns with precedence of allowing variances.
Commissioner Rahman - Troubled with order in which this is coming to Commission;
struggling with a situation that is not good.
Commissioner Rahman - Variances are very seriously considered; is this a precedent?
no
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
7
20
21
22
23
24
25
F �8
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Planning Commission Minutes - April 12, 1994
Planning Director Tuft - As long as 3,000 sq.ft. lot sizes are met, it is not a precedent.
The public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Thompson and seconded by Commissioner Torliatt
to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, approve three Variances from the minimum
dimensions required in the R -C zoning district to allow the creation of Lots 1 and 2 with
reduced lot depths of 97 feet and 97.5 feet respectively, and to allow a reduced rear yard
depth on Lot 1 of 20 feet on average, and to approve a Tentative Parcel Map based on the
findings and subject to the mitigations and amended conditions listed in the staff report.
COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes
COMMISSIONER PARKERSON Yes
COMMISSIONER RAHMAN: Yes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON: Yes
CHAIRMAN BENNETT: Yes
COMMISSIONER TORLIATT: Yes
COMMISSIONER vonRAESFELD: Abstain
Findings for Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
1. An Initial Study has been prepared and proper notice provided in accordance with
CEQA and local guidelines.
2. Based upon the Initial Study and comments received, potential impacts could be
avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures attached as
conditions of approval. There is no substantial evidence that the project, as
conditioned, would have a significant effect on the environment.
3. The project does not have potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the
Fish and Game code, either individually or cumulatively and is exempt from Fish
and Game filing fees because no significant wildlife resources have been identified
on the project site.
2. The size and configuration of the existing parcel and the location of the existing
house were established prior to the current R -C zoning restrictions, and as such are
not hardships created by an act of the owner /applicant or by a neighboring
violation.
3. Strict interpretation of the R -C zoning district requirements would deprive the
owner /applicant of the ability to create lots generally of comparable shape and size
as those enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district.
7
1. The project site is a large (approximately 12,600 sq,ft. in -fill site); over four times
the minimum lot size required in R -C zoning districts. The corner nature of the
parcel, placement of the existing home, and location of significant trees is a
sufficient hardship that is not common to other properties in the same zoning
district.
178 Plan ning Commission Minutes - April 12, 1994
4. The Variance will not result in a special privilege for the owner /applicant that is not
enjoyed by neighboring properties.
5. The authorization of a Variance permitting the creation of Lots 1 and 2 with
substandard depths and Lot 1 with a substandard rear yard depth will not result in a
substantial detriment to a neighboring property, other properties in the vicinity, or
the general public interest.
Subdivision Findinp-s
1. The proposed three lot residential subdivision, together with provisions for its
design and improvement, is consistent with the General Plan.
2. The proposed three lot subdivision, with the Variances granted, is consistent with
the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development permitted in the R -C
zoning district.
4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development permitted in the R -C
zoning district.
5. The proposed parcel map provides reasonable public access on a public road to the
proposed lots.
6. The proposed parcel map, subject to the following conditions, complies with the
requirements of the Municipal Code, Chapter 20.20 and the Subdivision Map Act.
7. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause
substantial environmental damage, and no substantial or avoidable injury will occur
to fish or wildlife or their habitat.
8. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not cause public
health problems.
Mitigation Measures
1. To reduce the temporary impact of noise generated during construction of the
project, all construction activities shall comply with applicable Zoning Ordinance
and Municipal Code performance standards. All noise- generating construction
activity shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, non-
holiday.
2. This project shall contribute the standard rate fee for increased off site drainage for
residential development as determined in the City's Special Development Fee
handout.
3. The existing 24" Walnut tree at the front of Lot 1 and the three conifers (a 12" Pine
tree, a 20" Pine tree, and a 24" Redwood tree) to the rear of Lot 2 shall be
preserved. Protective fencing shall be erected around said trees sub 'j staff
ect to sta
review and approval prior to issuance of a grading and /or building permit.
4. In the event that archaeological remains are encountered during' grading, the work
shall be halted and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for evaluation of the
Planning Commission. Minutes - April 12, 1994
1 artifacts and to recommend future action. The local Indian community shall also be
2 notified and consulted in the event any archaeological remains are uncovered.
3
4
5 Tentative Parcel Map Conditions
6
7 1. All requirements of the Public Works Department shall be complied with, including:
8
9 a. Repair any damaged sidewalk, curb and gutter.
10
11 b. Install new water and sewer services to Lots 2 and 3.
C
2. All requirements of the Engineering Department shall be complied with, including:
a. All broken or displaced sidewalk shall be removed and replaced per City
standards.
7
qcffR b. A pedestrian ramp shall be installed at the corner of Bassett and Upham
Streets. A special ramp shall be designed to avoid the existing catch basin
20 grate at the corner. The special ramp shall still meet the applicable disability
21 standards.
22
23 C. Water and sewer laterals shall be installed along the frontage of Lots 2 and 3.
24 Laterals shall . be constructed per City Standards and shall not be placed in
25 driveway areas. Trenches shall be slurry sealed after paving.
26
27 d. Plans shall be prepared and show improvements to be installed and
28 constructed with this parcel map. All improvements shall be completed prior
29 to issuing a certificate of occupancy.
30
31 e. Existing joint utility pole on Upham Street appears to be shown in the wrong
32 location and will interfere with the proposed driveway. This issue shall be
33 addressed on the improvement plans.
34
35 3. All requirements of the Planning Department shall be complied with, including:
36
37 a. The private parking easement on Lot 1 proposed for the benefit of Lot 2
38 shall be eliminated.
39
40 b. The common boundary between Lots 1 and 2 shall be adjusted slightly to
41 include the 12" Pine tree on Lot 2 entirely, subject to staff review and
42 approval prior to recordation of the Parcel Map.
43
44 C. In the event the approved two unit development plan is not constructed, any
45 future plans for the development of a dwelling on Lot 2 and /or 3 shall be
46 subject to administrative SPARC review. Administrative SPARC review
47 shall include, but not be limited to: a review of the unit architecture for
48 compatibility with the adjacent homes; a review of the orientation of
49 windows and doors to maintain some privacy between the proposed units and
50 adjacent homes; and landscaping including the need, if any, to retain the
51 existing 24 Walnut tree at the front of Lot 1, and the three conifers (a 12
52 Pine tree, a 20" Pine tree, and a 24" Redwood tree) to the rear of Lot 2.
53
179
0
IVOR
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Planning Commission Minutes - April 12, 1994
d. A minimum 3' setback shall be maintained between the building and westerly
property line of Lot 3.
4. The following Special Development Fees shall! be applicable to the development of
this project: Water and Sewer Connection, Storm Drainage Impact, Community
Facilities, Park and Recreation_ Land Improvement, School Facilities (paid directly
to the School District), and Traffic Mitigation.
5. All work within a public right -of -way requires an excavation permit from the
Department of Public Works.
6. 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 a &ainst 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 applicantsdevelopers 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.
7. The property line of Lot 3 shall be adjusted near its street frontage to encompass the
proposed driveway improvements.
IV. PROJECT STA'T'US:
1. Food 4 Less appeal - To Council on April 18.
2. Wisteria (sidewalk and second.units) - Project approved.
3. Roundwalk Village - EIR certified.
ADJOURNMENT 9:33 PM
min0412 / pcminl0
1
10